m^\ K' ¥1 m ■\i ENGOSff PTEI^ "SYSTEHST GRAY -uv\ A-3o35qq ' \\\ii^sjS ■ . . _ Cornell University Library HD 594.G77 English field systems, 3 1924 006 562 361 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924006562361 HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY FROM THE INCOME OF THE HENRY WARREN TORREY FUND VOLUME XXII HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES I. The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870. By W. E. B. DuBois, Ph.D., Editor of ** The Crisis." 8vo. ^ Si-So net. II. The Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in Massachusetts. By S. B. Harding, Ph.D., Professor of Euro- pean History in Indiana University. Svo. $1.25 net. III. A Critical Study of Nullification in South Carolina. By D. F. Houstpn, A.M., LL.D., Secretary of Agriculture. Svo. $1.25 net. IV. Nominations for Elective Office in the United States. By Frederick W. Dallinger, A.M., late Member of thie Massachusetts Senate. Svo. $1.5° net. V. A Bibliography of British Municipal His- tory. Including Gilds and Parliamentary Representation. By Charles Gross, Ph.D., late Gumey Professor of History and Politi- cal Science in Harvard University. Svo. $2.50 net. VI. The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the Northwest. By Theodore Clarke Smith, Ph.D., Professor of History in Williams College. Svo. $1-75 net. VII. The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America. By Evarts Boutell Greene, Ph.D., Professor of History in the University of Illinois. Svo. $1.50 net. VIII. The County Palatine of Durham. A Study in Constitutional History. By G. T. Lapsley, Ph.D., Fellow of Trinity Col- lege, Cambridge. Svo. $2.00 net. IX. The Anglican Episcopate and the Amer- ican Colonies. By Arthur Lyon Cross, Ph.D., Professor of European History in the University of Michigan. Svo. $2.50 net. X. The Administration of the American Rev- olutionary Army. By Louis Clinton Hatch, Ph.D. Svo. $1.50 net. XI. The Civil Service and the Patronage. By Carl Russell Fish, Ph.D., Professor of American History in the University of Wis- consin. Svo. $2.00 net. XII. The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts. By C. A. Duni- way, Ph.D., President of the University of Wyoming. Svo. $i-So net. XIII. The Seigniorial System in Canada. By W. B. Munro, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Municipal Government in Harvard Uni- versity. Svo. $2.00 net. XIV. The Frankpledge System. By William Alfred Morris, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of English History in the University of Cal- ifornia. Svo. $1.50 net. XV. The Public Life of Joseph Dudley. By Everett Kimball, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History in Smith College. Svo. $2.00 net. XVI. M6moire de Marie Caroline, Reine de Naples. Edited by Robert Matteson Johnston, A.M., Assistant Professor of Modem History in Harvard University. Svo. $2.00 net. XVII. The Barrington-Bemard Correspon- dence. Edited by Edward Channing, Ph.D., McLean Professor of Ancient and Modem History in Harvard University. Svo. $2.00 net. XVin. The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Mag- nificent. By Albert Howe Lybyer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History in the Uni- versity of Illinois. Svo. $2.00 net. XIX. The Granger Movement. By S. J. Buck, Research Associate in History in the University of Illinois. Svo. $2.00 net. XX. Burgage Tenure in Mediaeval England. By Morley de Wolf Hemmeon, Ph.D., some- time Austin Teaching Fellow in Harvard University. Svo. $1.50 net. XXI. An Abridgment of the Indian Affairs contained in four folio volumes, transacted in the colony of New York, from the year 167S to the year 1751, by Peter Wraxall. Edited with an introduction by Charles Howard Mcllwain, Ph.D., Assistant Pro- fessor of History in Harvard University. Svo. $2.00 net. XXII. English Field Systems. By Howard Levi Gray, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History in Harvard University. Svo. $2.75 net. HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A. ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS BY HOWARD LEVI gRAY, Ph.D. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY CAMBRIDGE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD Oxford University Press I9IS A-3o3S'i^ COPYRIGHT, IQIS HARVABD UNIVERSITY PRESS PREFACE For introductions which have given me access to many of the documents cited in this volxiiiie I am indebted to the Rev. A. H. Johnson of All Souls, Oxford, and to Mr. Hubert Hall of the PubHc Record Office. The custodians of various collections of records have been most courteous, notably those in charge of the British Museum, the Bodleian library, the PubHc Record Office, the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church, Canter- bury, and the estate docvunents at Holkham Hall. Messrs. J. M. Davenport and J. R. S)anonds put at my disposal the enclosure awards of Oxfordshire and Herefordshire respectively. In making revisions and in correcting proof I have reUed upon the skill and care of Miss A. F. Rowe of Cambridge. Professors C. H. Haskins and E. F. Gay of Harvard read the unfinished text and offered valuable suggestions; in particular I am under heavy obUgation to Professor Gay, whose unfaiUng encouragement and generous assistance have made possible the publication of these chapters. H. L. G. Cambridge, Massachusetts, August, 1915. CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 3 CHAPTER I The Two- and Three-Field System 17 CHAPTER II The Earlier History of the Two- and Three-Field System . 50 CHAPTER III ■ Early Irregular Fields within the Midland Area . . 83 CHAPTER IV The Later History of the Midland System est Oxfordshire AND Herefordshire ... 109 CHAPTER V The Celtic System 157 CHAPTER VI The Influence of the Celtic System in England .... 206 CHAPTER VII The Kentish System ... ... .... 272 CHAPTER VIII The East Anglian System .... . 3°5 CHAPTER IX The Lower Thames Basin . . . .... 355 CHAPTER X Results and Conjectures . . 403 vm CONTENTS APPENDIX I A. Extracts from a Survey of Kington, Wiltshire 421 B. Extracts from a Survey of Handborough, Oxfordshire . 430 C. Summaries of Tudor and Jacobean Surveys which illus- trate Normal Two- and Three-Feeld Townships .... 437 APPENDIX II Evidence, largely Early, bearing upon the Extent of the Two- and Three-Field System 450 APPENDIX III Summaries of Tudor and Jacobean Surveys which illustrate Irbegular Fields within the Area of the Two- and Three-Field System 510 APPENDIX IV Parliamentary Enclosures in Oxfordshire 536 APPENDIX V Extracts from the Survey of an Estate lying in New- church, BiLSINGTON, AND ROMNEY MarSH, KeNT . . 543 APPENDIX VI Summaries of Tudor and Jacobean Surveys which illustrate Irregular Township-Fields in the Basin or the Lower Thames . . . . INDEX 549 S6i MAPS PAGE I. Map of England and Wales, showing Important Places re- ferred to and the Boundaries of the Two- and Three-Field System . . Frontispiece II. Sketch of the Tithe Map of the Township of Chalgrove, Ox- fordshire. 1841 ... . . . . 20 III. Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Township of Croxton, Lincolnshire. 1810 . . 26 IV. Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Township of Stow, Lin- colnshire. 1804 . 75 V. Sketch of a Map of Padbury, Buckinghamshire. 1591 . . 77 VI. Enclosure Map of Oxfordshire . . 115 VII. Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Township of Kingham, Oxfordshire. 1850 . . . 127 VIII. Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Risbury Division of Stoke Prior, Herefordshire. 1855 144 IX. Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Township of Holmer, Herefordshire. 1855 • 146 X. Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Parish of Marden, Here- fordshire. 1819 . . 147 XL Sketch of a Townland in Donegal, Ireland, showing the Hold- ings of three Tenants. 1845 190 XII. Plan of an Estate of All Souls College, Oxford, lying in the Townships of Newington and Upchurch, Kent. 1593 274 XIII. Plan of an Estate in the Township of Buxton, Norfolk. 1714 . 311 XIV. Plan of an Estate in the Township of Shropham, Norfolk. 1714 . . 312 XV. Sketch of a Map of the Township of West Lexham, Norfolk. 1S7S • • • 317 XVI. Plan of the Open Fields of Weasenham, Norfolk, showing the Location of George Elmdon's Holding. 1600 322 XVII. Sketch of a Map of the Township of Holkham, Norfolk, show- ing the Fold Courses. 1590 . . 327 ABBREVIATIONS C. Inq. p. Mort Chancery Inquisitions post Mortem (reign, file, number). C. P. Recov. Ro Common Pleas Recovery Roll. D. of Lane, M. B Duchy of Lancaster, Miscellaneous Book. Exch. Aug. Of., M. B Exchequer, Augmentation Office, Miscel- laneous Book. K. B. Plea Ro King's Bench Plea Roll. Land Rev., M. B Land Revenue, Miscellaneous Book. Ped. Fin Pedes Finium (case, file, number). Rents, and Survs., Portf Rentals and Surveys, Portfolio. ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS INTRODUCTION The term " field system " signifies the mamier in which the inhabitants of a township subdivided and tilled their arable, meadow, and pasture land. Although a study of field systems may seem to be primarily of antiquarian interest, the following chapters have been written as a contribution to our knowledge of the settlement of England and to the history of English agri- culture. Since these subjects are wide in scope, no attempt has been made to treat either of them fully; yet it may not be impossible to show that a comprehension of the structure and cultivation of township fields is germane to both. The settlement of England, as every one knows, is a topic relative to which the sources of information are very scanty. To what extent Celtic and Roman influences persisted after the Germanic invasions of the fifth century is inadequately revealed in existing written records.^ To supplement narrative accounts scholars have had recourse to such indirect sources of information as linguistics, mythology, archaeology, and to later social, govern- mental, and legal institutions. Since not the least significant among social customs, especially with primitive peoples, is the method adopted in tilling the soil, an understanding of the differ- ences in agricultural practice early manifested in various parts of I England may prove of assistance in distinguishing between the groups that retained or occupied and held the several sections of the country. Perhaps a still more important and more comprehensive sub- ject is the history of English agriculture. Until the nineteejxth ' Tfie question as to what Germanic groups occupied the several parts of Eng- land in the course of the fifth and sixth centuries is ably discussed by H. M. Chad- wick, The Origin of the English Nation, Cambridge, 1907. 4 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS century agriculture remained the chief source of the national wealth of England, and no account of the fortunes of her people that neglects the topic is adequate. No improvements in the arts before the introduction of the factory system affected so large a proportion of the population as did improvements in tillage; and if disastrous changes occurred the men who suffered were the bone and sinew of the nation. What the following chapters have to tell relates to only a single phase of agricultural progress; but, since that phase is the manner in which more and more of the soil was brought under improved cultivation, it has an immediate bearing upon national wealth and individual well-being. The agriculture and settlement of primitive peoples have been studied with less diligence by English than by German scholars — perhaps a natural outcome of the perception in Germany that an intimate relation existed between the early history of the Germans and the agrarian side of their life. No passages in the writings of classical historians are discussed more frequently than the brief descriptions of these matters found in Caesar and Tacitus. Inherent tendencies toward democracy or toward aristocracy, it is thought, are there to be discerned. Attention, too, has been focused upon the agriculture of the Germans as practiced somewhat later, when they invaded the Roman empire and in their laws gave testimony to their methods of tilling the soil. Since all such documentary references to early agrarian custom are brief, it has been usual to interpret them in the light of later usages, descriptions of which have an added value in constituting, as they do, records of the age to which they belong. To two of her scholars is Germany particularly indebted for interpretations and descriptions of this kind. During the second quarter of the nineteenth century Georg Hanssen, stimulated perhaps by the pioneer activity of the Danish Oluffsen, set forth in a series of papers the various field systems or t3^es of agriculture existent at one time or another in Germanic territories.^ In continuation of Hanssen's studies, August Meitzen published in 1895 a more ' Agrarhistorische Ahhandlungen, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1880-84. INTRODUCTION 5 comprehensive work.' Relying largely upon the plans of town- ship fields as they appeared at the time of their enclosure in the nineteenth century, he interpreted and compared the earlier agrarian arrangements of Roman, Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic peoples. Not merely to field systems, however, did he have recourse, but in the types of village settlement and in the forms of dwelling-house adopted by the peoples in question he found additional evidence for determining the movements of the popu- lation of Europe in the early Middle Ages. The task was a vast one and its achievement noteworthy; but the generalizations suffer somewhat from the circumstances that much of the evi- dence is late in date and that such of it as comes from certain countries, notably France, England, and Italy, is inconsiderable. For information regarding English field arrangements Meitzen relied mainly upon the lucid account given in Seebohm's English Village Community} In this cleverly written book the author reproduces a plan of the township of Hitchin, Hertfordshire, made at the time of the enclosure of the open common fields about 1816. It is the type of evidence which Meitzen himself was to use extensively and which, despite its recent date, is always of value. Beginning with a description of the features portrayed in the Hitchin plan, features which constitute the so- called three-field system, Seebohm with the assistance of three or four terriers carries the reader back to Anglo-Saxon days, arguing that the open fields of English villages at that time differed in no essential particular from the Hitchin fields of 1816. Behind these descriptions runs the thread of an hypothesis which inter- ested the author more than did the presentation of facts; for it is the thesis of the book that the practically unchanging open-field system of an English township had from Roman days served as the protective shell of a community settled in serfdom upon it.^ 1 Siedelung und Agrarwesen der W estgermanen und Ostgermanen, der Kelten, Romer, Finnen und Slawen, 3 vols, and atlas, Berlin, 1895. An account of the antecedent literature of the subject is given in vol. i, pp. 19-28. ^ Frederic Seebohm, The English Village Community examined in its Relations to the Manorial and Tribal Systems and to the Common or Open Field System of Husbandry, London, 1883. ' Ibid., 409. 6 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS In contrast the author sketches the Celtic field system, referring particularly to the aspect of a nineteenth-century Irish township ^ and to the testimony of early Welsh laws. As an account of early agricultural arrangements Seebohm's treatment is defi- cient in scope, his meagre evidence by no means warranting the inference that the three-field system was prevalent throughout England from the earhest times. So far as the structure of Enghsh village fields is concerned, Seebohm was not the first to make inquiries. Nasse, in a brief monograph, had already examined with some care the Anglo- Saxon evidence to ascertain whether it showed the arable unen- closed and parcelled out among the tenants in intermixed strips.^ Having satisfied himself that it did, he turned to thirteenth- century documents to inquire whether a two-field or a three-field system was then prevalent. Rogers, as he noted, had surmised that arable lands were at this time usually left one-half faUow each year, and Fleta in the reign of Edward I had implied that the two systems were co-existent. Since Nasse's own investiga- tions revealed to him various instances of three-field husbandry in contrast with only one description of two fields, he concluded that in the thirteenth century the former was " decidedly the prevaihng system." ' This view of Nasse's is what Seebohm, in so far as he wrote of field systems, has made popular. Rogers's conjecture is repeated by Vinogradoff, who, after pointing to nine or ten two-field townships and noting that Walter of Henley as weU as Fleta was famihar with both systems, surmises that the two-field rotation may have been " very extensively spread in England in the thirteenth century." * The evidence adduced regarding English field systems thus proves to be somewhat sUght — rather too slight to warrant ' Cf. below, p. 19 1. ^ Erwin Nasse, On the Agricultural Community of the Middle Ages, and Inclosures of the Sixteenth Century in England (translated by H. A. Ouvry, London, 1872), pp. 19-26. Cf. below, p. 51 sq. ' Ibid., 52-58. Most of Nasse's citations refer only to a three-course rota- tion of crops, which does not necessarily imply a three-field system. Cf. below, pp. 44-45. * Paul VinogradoflF, Villainage in England (Oxford, 1892), pp. 229-230. INTRODUCTION 7 Vinogradoff's summary dismissal of the subject.' It reduces, in brief, to a familiarity with the three-field system as practiced in nineteenth-century Hitchin, projected back by the testimony of two thirteenth-century writers and by some twenty references to two- or three-field villages dating mainly from the same century. Yet since VinogradofI wrote no one has dissented from his pronouncement or taken a further interest in the subject. One of the problems upon which, as has been intimated, the study of field systems promises to throw light is the development of EngHsh agriculture. With this development, so far as it resulted from the innovations of the eighteenth century which had to do with the rotation of crops and the introduction of convertible husbandry, we are not unfamiliar.^ It chances, however, that these improvements were contemporary with the transformation of England from an agricultural into a manu- facturing country, and that for this reason the benefits conferred by the experiments of Thomas Coke and others reached a far smaller proportion of the population than would have been affected had the change occurred earher. In days when the annual return from tillage and sheep-raising determined the prosperity of the people to a greater degree than when these pursuits were supplemented by the work of the factories, farming assumed more importance. It is with the improvements of the earlier period that the following chapters are more immediately concerned. In English agriculture interest has always fluctuated between corn-growing and pasture-farming. During the Middle Ages a ' " The chief features of the field-system which was in operation in England during the middle ages have been sufficiently cleared up by modem scholars, especially by Nasse, Thorold Rogers, and Seebohm. . . . Everybody knows that the arable of an English village was commonly cultivated under a three years' rotation of crops; a two-field system is also found very often; there are some instances of more complex arrangements, but they are very rare, and appear late — not earlier than the fourteenth century " (ibid., 224). The complex arrangement at Littleton, Gloucestershire, that Vinogradoff proceeds to discuss refers to demesne lands, which possibly did not lie in open field. 2 A good sketch of it is given by W. H. R. Curtler, A Short History of English Agriculture (Oxford, 1909), pp. 111-228. 8 ■ ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS combination of the two was usually effected through the annual communal tillage of a part of the improved arable, and the pasturing of sheep and cattle upon the waste and upon that por- tion of the arable which during the year in question lay fallow. Of enclosed land held in severalty and available either for tillage or for pasturage there was little. Such as existed was in general to be found among the demesne lands of the lord or in the home closes of the tenants. Whenever, none the less, our records appraise enclosed land they give it a higher valuation than they assign to the open-field arable, an indication that from an early period separable land available for both pasture and tUlage was recog- nized as more remunerative than common arable field.^ A corollary of this estimate is that agricultural progress was bound to take one of two directions. It was necessary either that the unenclosed arable of a township should be brought under better tillage while continuing to lie open, or that it should be enclosed and given over to convertible husbandry .^ From an agricultural point of view the latter procedure was, of course, the wiser and has ultimately been adopted. But there stood in the way of such a transformation serious technical and social diffi- culties. The enclosure of the old fields implied, as we shall see, a consolidation of the scattered parcels of each holding and a cessation of communal tillage. For a long time the latter step was actually impossible of accompKslmient. Mediaeval plough- ing demanded a team of eight oxen or horses yoked to a heavy ' At Haversham, Bucks, for example, the demesne comprised " c acre terre arabilis iacentes in separali que valent per amium xxx s. iiii d. . . . et centum acre terre que iacent in communi et valent per annum si sunt seminate xvi s. viii d. ; et si non sunt seminate nihil valent quia pastura communis est " (C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 4S (20), 9 Edw. III). ^ The term " convertible husbandry " is used in the following chapters to desig- nate the continuous aimual tillage of improved lands under a succession of grain and grass crops. The equivalent German term is " neuere Feldgraswirtschaft " (Hanssen, Agrarhistorische Abhandlungen, i. 216 sq.). Although, when once in grass, land thus tilled was usually left so for more than one year, this feature should not be insisted upon in a definition, as is done by W. Roscher (System der Volks- wirthschaft, 2. Bd., Nationalbkonomik des Ackerbaues und der verwandten Urproduc- tionen, 12th edition, Stuttgart, 1888, p. 89). Some of Hanssen's illustrations show no series of grass years (cf. pp. 227, 231). Convertible husbandry was sometimes practiced upon open-field lands (cf. below, p. 129, 158). INTRODUCTION 9 plough,! whereas even a team of four beasts, which was still used in places until the end of the eighteenth century,^ was beyond the reach of any except the more prosperous tenants. Communal ploughing thus became inevitable, and it was only natural that strips should be ploughed successively for each contributor to the plough team. In this way an antiquated technique of tillage long prevented the consolidation of the scattered strips of the holdings. Added to this difficulty was the social one. Communal husbandry had in its favot the authority of long tradition, a potent force with a timorous and conservative peasantry. In the event of readjustment — the peasant asked himself — would not the strong profit, the poor suffer ? Hence there grew up a popular prejudice against the enclosure and improvement of the common fields. It should not, however, be assumed, as is often done, that agricultural improvement could take place only through en- closure. Certain open-field systems were superior to others, and a substitution of the better for the poorer meant definite progress. While a two-field arrangement, for example, permitted the annual tillage of only one-half of the arable, a three-field one utilized two-thirds of it and a four-field one three-fourths. Moreover, a transition from one to the other of these systems, or to an irregular arrangement of fields, involved no abandon- ment of intermixed holdings or of cooperative ploughing; and, inasmuch as no tenant had anything to lose by such a change but each was likely to gain by it, friction did not arise. Of the substitution of one system for the other little record is left in complaints before royal courts, in petitions for parKamentary redress, or in the jeremiads of social reformers. Evidence re- garding it has to be sought in the records of manorial courts, and especially in terriers and surveys that picture the subdivisions of the arable fields. It was the slow pacific change which most ' P. Vinogradofif, English Society in the Eleventh Century (Oxford, 1908), P- 154- ^ " Four horses are generally put to a plow, even if the work is a second or third tilth; and on land that has lain a few years the strength is often increased to six horses " (W. Pearce, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Berkshire, London, 1794, p. 24). lO ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS easily escapes the chronicles but which is no less significant in %^ the annals of progress than are dramatic transformations. Since this phase of the subject has been little studied by modern stu- dents, considerable attention will be devoted to it in the following chapters. The other form of agricultural advance, the enclosure of the township's open arable fields and unimproved common, has attracted much notice even from the end of the fifteenth century. Because it then excited popular discontent and appeared to be conducive to depopulation, it straightway fell under the censure of the Tudor government, which, Uke the other rising mercantiUs- tic powers, was extremely sensitive on the latter point. Parlia- mentary enactment was followed by royal inquisition, both concerned primarily with depopulation. Complaint, legislation, investigation, Htigation, and revolt continued throughout the sixteenth century and into the seventeenth. Opposition then became somewhat less vocal and less violent, although the process none the less went on. Precisely how much was accomplished during these two centuries in the way of enclosure and conversion of common lands it is difi&cult to determine. The area seems not to have been great in the sixteenth century, but to have been considerable in a few localities during the seventeenth.^ What is clear is the persistence throughout midland England, in the middle of the eighteenth century, of great areas of common arable field. During the one hundred and twenty-five years that followed, however, most of this was enclosed by act of parhament, and at the end of the nineteenth century an open- field township in England had become a curiosity. To this long-continued and much-distrusted process consider- able attention has been given by modern students. Scrutton formulated the problem, especially with reference to the enclosure of unimproved commons.^ Gay has described critically the contemporary Hterature.' He has further examined the findings of the inquisitions of Tudor and Jacobean times, so far as they 1 Cf. below, pp. II, n. i, loi, 107, 149-152, 207, 307-312. ' T. E. Scrutton, Commons and Common Fields, or the History and Policy of the Laws relating to Commons and Enclosures in England, Cambridge, 1887. ' E. F. Gay, Zur Geschichte der Einhegungen in England, Berlin, 1902. INTRODUCTION II are preserved, and on the basis of these has estunated the extent to which enclosure proceeded during the century in question.^ Relative to the period after 1607 no such comprehensive and scholarly investigation has been undertaken. Miss Leonard's paper on seventeenth-century enclosures is useful for its evidence about Durham; ^ but, since what happened in that county was not representative of the usual course of events, it can form no basis for a generalization.^ Other testimony concerning seventeenth-century enclosures, as it occurs in the records of the privy council, has been collected by Conner; and the paper which embodies his results has been expanded into a stout volume by the restatement of much that had already been said on the subject.* Touching the enclosures of the eighteenth and nine- teenth centuries no better account than Slater's has appeared; but this is hardly satisfactory, for it is based, not upon the most detailed and accurate documents available, but upon more sum- mary ones.* Nevertheless, it serves to give a general idea of the extent and location of such arable fields as were enclosed by act of parliament. In view of the inadequate treatment of the enclosure movement after the days of James I, an attempt will be made in one of the following chapters to outHne a more satisfactory method of study- ing it.^ The later enclosure history of two English counties will ' " Inclosures in England in the Sixteenth Century," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1903, xvii. 576-597; "The Inquisitions of Depopulation in 1517 and the Domesday of Inclosures," Royal Hist. Soc, Trans., new series, 1900, xiv. 231-303; "The Midland Revolt and the Inquisitions of Depopulation of 1607," ibid., 1904, xviii. 195-244. He concludes, " The specific inclosure movement . . . reveals itself as one of comparatively small beginnings, gradually gaining force through the sixteenth century and continuing with probably little check through- out the seventeenth century, until it was absorbed in the wider inclosure activity of the eighteenth century " (" Inclosures in England," p. 590). ^ E. M. Leonard, " The Inclosure of Common Fields in the Seventeenth Cen- tury," Royal Hist. Soc, Trans., new series, 1905, xix. 101-146. ' Cf. below, pp. 107, no, 138. * E. C. K. Conner, " The Progress of Inclosure during the Seventeenth Cen- tury," English Historical Review, 1908, xxiii. 477-501; expanded into Common Land and Inclosure, London, 191 2. » Gilbert Slater, The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields London, 1907. Cf. below, p. m, n. 2. « Chapter IV, below. 12 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS be examined in some detail, not only for the purpose of ascertain- ing the extent to which open arable fields persisted within their borders, but also in the hope of discovering what systems of tillage were practiced at the time of enclosing. In so far as it is possible to determine whether these were improvements upon old methods, and whether any relationship existed between them and the tendency toward enclosure, new light will have been thrown upon the history of English farming. The study of field systems, while it should prove conducive to a knowledge of the phases of agricultural development, is, as has been indicated, related to another aspect of English history. Since the structure and tillage of township fields have roots far in the past, the subject is one that reflects the usages and characteristics of primitive society. For this reason it furnishes acceptable information about the groups of settlers whose fusion in early Anglo-Saxon days resulted in the formation of the English people. Written records of that period being few, investigations and inferences like those which Meitzen made for the continent are pertinent for England. To such the later chapters of this volume are in a measure devoted. Within the sphere of agrarian studies it is possible to direct attention to types of settlement and to units of land measure as well as to field systems. To the first of these topics no such study has been given in England as Meitzen and Schliiter have bestowed upon Germany.' Maitland's remarks and Vinogradoff's examination of Essex and Derbyshire are the only approaches to the subject, and the latter is concerned with the size rather than the structure of village settlement.'' Units of land measurement, however, have to some extent been considered in two important recent works, whose authors have hazarded certain inferences as to Celtic and Roman influences.' Relative to the subject of ' Otto Schliiter, Siedlungskunde des Thales der Unstrut von der sachlenburger Pforte bis zur Mundung, Halle, 1896. ^ F. W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, three Essays in the Early History of England (Cambridge, 1897), pp. 15-16; Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, pp. 269-273. ' F. Seebohm, Customary Acres and their Historical Importance, London, 1914; G. J. Turner, A Calendar of the Feel of Fines relating to the County of Huntingdon INTRODUCTION 1 3 field systems, since no studies have followed those of Nasse and Seebohm, described above, it has for the most part been assumed that either the two-field or the three-field system, or the two side by side, prevailed from the earUest times. ^ Not the least of the aims of the following discussion, therefore, will be an en- deavor to show that the field systems of England were"' by no means uniform, - — that no fewer than three distinct types arose, presumably corresponding to as many different influences exerted by the peoples who early occupied the country. No examination whatever of primitive units of measurement will here be at- tempted, and types of settlement will receive consideration only in so far as they influenced the size of township fields. The structure of villages, a subject which may yet contribute to the writing of early English history, is worthy of an independent monograph. If we ask what data are available for a description of the types of English field systems, we find that these vary from century to century. The meagre references in the charters of the Anglo- Saxon period barely indicate the existence of open arable fields, without telling the form which they assumed. Only from the end of the twelfth century is the evidence, still brief, at all definite on this point. At that time charters and feet of fines begin, though rarely,^ to describe in detail the lands which they transfer by mentioning areas of parcels and locations in fields (campi) and furlongs (cuUurae). After the middle of the thirteenth century the fines cease to be specific, thenceforth reciting simply the acres of aratle (terra), meadow, and pasture with which they are concerned; the charters continue to give detailed descriptions until the middle of the fourteenth century, when they too for the most part become formal and jejune. (Cambridge Antiq. Soc, Octavo Publications, no. xxxvii, Cambridge, 1913), Intro- duction. Cf. below, p. 409. ' From this view Meitzen {Sieddung und Agrarwesen, ii. 122) vaguely dissents, on the ground that the type of settlement in Kent and elsewhere was Celtic. Gay (" Inclosures in England," pp. S93-594) suggests that differing forms of agricultural practice characterized England from an early period, and Conner (Common Land and Inclosure, p. 125) mentions the possibility. ' Perhaps once in a hundred times. 14 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Of far less value than the charters are the manorial extents. Drawn up in considerable numbers in the late thirteenth and early- fourteenth centuries, and for the most part embedded in inqui- sitions post mortem, these documents do not locate the acres of the tenants' holdings in the fields. Occasionally the demesne arable is so described as to show that it lay in a two-field or a three-field township, or was consolidated; but more often it is said to lie " in " several cuUurae, a phrase which leaves us un- certain whether the culturae were open-field furlongs composed of strips or were block-like subdivisions of a consolidated demesne. At times the extents refer to the manner of tilling the demesne; but the implication of such evidence for the history of field sys- tems is uncertain and the interpretation of it difficult.^ More serviceable than the extents are the terriers, which ap- pear in increasing numbers from the fifteenth century to the end of the seventeenth. These detailed descriptions of one or more holdings in a township continue the tradition of the most valua- ble of the fines and charters in tending, like them, to describe freeholds and copyholds rather than demesne. Especially in the seventeenth century are they useful in telling us whether a town- ship was open or enclosed and, if open, what sort of field system it employed. The obvious defect of all the above-mentioned documents lies in the fragmentary nature of the information which they contain: nowhere do they furnish a complete and specific description of the fields of an entire township. Complete descriptions are to be had, it seems, in only three classes of documents. Two of these are late — the enclosure awards of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the tithe maps posterior to 1836. The awards themselves, though dealing with entire townships, often omit much through their indifference to old enclosures, and frequently they contain no more than casual references to the condition of that open field the disappearance of which they record. They are intent upon becoming authorities for the future rather than sources of information about the past. With the tithe maps and accompanying schedules, which also deal with entire townships, ' Cf. below, pp. 43-46, 321. INTRODUCTION 1 5 it is different. These picture exactly the condition of township fields at the time when the rating was made; but, unfortunately for the subject in hand, that time is usually so late that the old field system of the township had already been much trans- formed. The maps are likely to show considerable arable en- closed and novel field systems in use. Had the tithe maps been made in the middle of the eighteenth century, they would have been a boon to the student; dating as they do from the middle of the nineteenth, they are of only occasional assistance. A third class of documents, most valuable of all for the pur- poses of this study, are the manorial surveys (supervisus) and field-books' of Tudor and early Stuart days.^ Their complete- ness and detail, so far as field conditions are concerned, render them a desirable starting-point for any excursus into earlier or later agrarian history. To interpret the more fragmentary material of an earher time they can be used with particular advantage. A word should be added regarding township maps other than tithe maps. The earliest of them date from the late sixteenth century and for graphic illustration surpass the surveys. When, however, a township comprised two or more manors, as was usu- ally the case in the southeast, the map often worked out detailed areas for only one manor, merely sketching in the remainder of the township. Such maps are properly akin to terriers rather than to surveys. The rarer ones of the true survey type, giving areas of all strips and plats, were probably made to accompany field-books, as was the excellent one drafted for Sir Edward Coke in 1 601.' ' Often calling themselves terriers, or draggae. ^ Documents of this sort were first described by W. J. Corbett (" Elizabethan Village Surveys," Royal Hist. Soc, Trans., new series, 1897, xi. 67-87), most of those cited relating to Norfolk. Recently there has been printed for the Roxburghe Club an excellent series of Wiltshire surveys, entitled Survey of the Lands of William, First Earl of Pembroke, ed. C. R. Straton, 2 vols., Oxford, 1909. These and others like them have been successfully utilized for writing the social history of the sixteenth century by R. H. Tawney, The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century, London, 191 2. ' The Weasenham field-book of 42 Elizabeth, with two maps, preserved in the Holkham MSS. 1 6 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS In the following chapters the plan has been to seek first the characteristics of the field system of a region in those descrip- tions which, though relatively late, are most nearly complete. Such are the enclosure awards and maps of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and particularly the surveys of Tudor and Stuart times. Earlier evidence is then adduced to discover whether the thirteenth-century situation was a prototype of that of the eighteenth century, or whether there had been change. Before the thirteenth century we shall be on conjectural ground, but some guesses may be hazarded. This method of trying to ascertain early conditions largely through the use of late evidence is not without danger, and from its ill effects neither Seebohm's nor Meitzen's works are free. Yet there seems to be no other way of approaching clearly the subject in hand, while it is often only by the aid of late survivals that the earUer phenomena can be interpreted at all. The method is therefore adopted with full consciousness of its shortcomings, particularly of the restriction which demands that the projection of any situation into the past be accompanied with provisos. In particular we must not forget that the testimony which survives is only a small fraction of what once existed and what would alone insure certainty. As we approach earlier times our account of the situation must tend to become less of an exposition and more of an argument. We can no longer say, " The evidence tells us thus and so "; we are forced to plead, " Since this was true at a later time and the scanty earlier testimony is in accord with it, may not the known facts be projected into the unknown and unrecorded past ? " Constructive argument and fragmentary testimony thus to a large extent become the basis for a description of early agrarian conditions; but the validity of argument and conclusion may at any moment be tested by the reader who has the known facts before him. CHAPTER I The Two- and Three-Field System Two-field townships left one-half of their arable fallow each year, three-field townships one-third of it. Apart from this the method of tillage employed by both groups was essentially the same and may for the present be called the two- and three-field system. The characteristics of this system have in a general way long been known. No one, however, has ascertained in precisely what way it differed from other field systems, at what time we first get sight of it in England, in what parts of the island it was then to be found, what irregularities it began in course of time to manifest, and what was the history of its last years. This chapter and the three following ones are designed to throw light on these questions. It is well first of all to determine the fundamental characteris- tics of the system. Seebohm's description of Hitchin, based upon the tithe map of 1816 and giving perhaps our most concrete picture of a township under a three-field system, is after all not quite complete or accurate. That there were six fields makes little difference, since we know from a court roll that the six were grouped by twos for a three-course rotation of crops. That in one of these fields 48 owners together held 289 parcels of land, each having from one to 38 parcels, is completely deduced from the schedule of the tithe map. Nothing, however, is advanced to show that these 48 owners held corresponding areas in other fields. The map in which the author represents the " normal virgftte or yard-land " is, so far as we can see, imaginary.' The insertion of a fourteenth-century description of a virgate at Winslow, furthermore, is ingeniously contrived to lead the reader to think that its details applied as well to a Hitchin virgate in 1816; but it will be noticed that the Winslow terrier does not divide its parcels between two or three or six fields. Seebohm ' English Village Community, p. 27, map 4. The virgate, as will be explained, was the fuU-sized holding of a villein or customary tenant. 17 1 8 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS has, in short, grafted the parcels of a virgate of the time of Edward III, the relation of which to " fields " remains uncertain, upon a nineteenth-century tithe map, which has the equivalent of three fields, but fields in which we do not know the distribution of the strips of the several owners.' Everything at Hitchin may, of course, have been as one is led to infer. The holdings may have consisted of scattered parcels equally divided among three pairs of fields; the existence of six fields, indeed, makes this probable, or at least makes it probable that such had once been the case. Yet proof of these facts should not be omitted in the description and definition of a typical three-field township. There are in- stances of townships which had three fields but in which a three- field system did not prevail.^ To repair the shortcomings of the Hitchin illustration, and to ampKfy the description of a type of open field which was im- doubtedly once widespread in England, it may be permissible to summarize conditions in certain typical two-field and three-field townships chosen from different counties. In order to make the foundation sure, complete accounts of townships are desirable; and these must, for the most part, be sought for in surveys of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries or in later records. Since pictorial illustration, as Seebohm knew, is more readily comprehensible than written documents, his happy example may be followed and a tithe map first reproduced. That of a town- ship in eastern Oxfordshire answers the purpose. The village of Chalgrove Hes precisely within the area where in 1808 Arthur Young noted the continuance of a three-course husbandry.^ The tithe apportionment of the township was fixed in 1841, just before its enclosure in 1845; and the map, which is here sketched,^ in- dicates all parcels, the areas and tenants being specified in a schedule. * ' An insert to the Hitchin map does, to be sure, show the scattered strips of William Lucas, Esq., but without areas. * Cf. p. 314, below. " Viewof the Agriculture of Oxfordshire (London, 1809), p. 127. Cf.p. 124, below. * Owing to the reduction in scale, the number of strips in each furlong is not so great as in the original, which measures some six feet by seven. The large irreg- ular blocks of the old enclosures are also not shown; but no other important details are omitted. The map is deposited with the Board of Agriculture in St. James Square. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 1 9 The area of Chalgrove in 1841 was 2358 acres. Two-thirds of this area was arable, nearly one-fifth meadow and pasture.^ Much of the latter lay enclosed in three farms, which were situated to the north between the open fields and the common of 140 acres. Probably the farms had at some time been improved from the waste, with perhaps some encroachment upon the common arable fields. When the map was made, however, these fields seem to have been nearly intact. They consisted of about two thousand long narrow " lands" or selions, each containing usually from one- fourth of an acre to one acre.^ Several parallel lands constituted a furlong or shot, and there were about one hundred furlongs in the township. These differed in shape and size, both features depending largely upon the contour of the land. In consequence the strips varied in length; but a desire to limit their length seems manifest in the frequent appearance side by side of two furlongs the strips of which ran in the same direction. In general the length of a " land " did not exceed that of the English standard acre (forty rods or poles), and there was an undoubted tendency on the part of the acre parcels to conform roughly to the shape of the standard acre. Their breadth thus became one- tenth of their length, that of half-acre parcels one-twentieth, and that of quarter-acres one-fortieth. In other field documents short strips and subdivided strips are often called butts, while triangular or irregular parcels at the end of a furlong are caUed gores. The map shows the lands of two adjacent furlongs frequently at right angles to one another. In such cases that strip of one furlong upon which the strips of the other abutted served as a turning- ground for the plough when~4he abutting strips were ploughed, and was called a headland. The lands numbered 755 and 1751 on the accompanying plan are designated in the schedule as head- lands, their situation being that just described. A stream formed part of the northern boundary of the town- ship, and another traversed it near the village. Some of the ' The schedule appended to the map subtracts the glebe and gives areas in acres as follows: arable land, 1620; meadow and pasture land, 431; wood land, 8; com- mon land (i. e., the common pasture, or waste), 140; homesteads, 48; glebe, 69; roads and wastes, 42. 2 Cf. the following terrier, p. 22, below. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 21 water from the latter was diverted to flow along the village street, rejoining the main brook near the church. Beside both streams were the short strips of meadow which were never ploughed and were elsewhere often called dales. Between the homesteads and the stream were the home closes (" homestalls," " garths," " backsides.") Thus far the above description might well apply to many an open-field township which was by no means cultivated in accord- ance with the principles of the two- and three-field system. The characteristic feature of the latter was the further grouping of the furlongs into two, three, four, or six large fields. At Chalgrove there were two groups of fields. The fields of the smaller group to the south of the village are designated in the tithe schedule Langdon, Middle Langdon, and Lower Langdon. With these went certain furlongs toward the northwest, and within them lay much freehold. Indeed, it is not certain that so late as 1841 they were tilled in a strictly three-field manner. To the northeast of the village lay those fields among which the copyholds, the glebe, and certain freeholds were divided. They were without doubt the old three fields of the township, and in 1841 were known as Sohnger field, Houndswell field, and Sand field. They ad- joined one another and were similar in extent. At the western end of Houndswell field lay two small " fields " named Bower End and Upper End, both pretty clearly appendant to Hounds- well field but probably deriving independent names from their proximity to parts of the village called Bower End and Upper End. How the customary holdings were related to the fields is shown by the following description, transcribed from the schedule.' Since this copyhold of John Jones was similar to the glebe and to several other copyholds, it may be taken as typical of early con- ditions. Although the schedule does not use the term virgate or yard-land, often applied in other documents to customary hold- ings, the size of this copyhold is about that of the normal virgate, and not improbably represented such a holding: — ' Tithe schedule, p. 12. 22 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS John Jones. — Copyhold for lives under the PREsrosNT and OF Saint Mary Magdalene College, Oxford No. on the Map Bower End Field 435 One Land in Acre Hedge Furlong Arable Upper End Field 548 One Land in Harpes End Furlong 553 One Land in Harpes End Furlong Sand Field 574 One Yard in Lank Furlong 60s Ois ^'^^^ ™ Lank Furlong 612 One Land in Lank Furlong 615 One Land in Setts Furlong 688 One Acre in Little Pry Furlong 690 One Acre in Little Pry Furlong 739 One Land in Short Furlong 752 Two acres in Short Furlong 755 One Headacre Land Shooting on Chiswell Common. . . . 765 One Land in Great Pry Furlong 786 One acre in Great Pry Furlong 843 Two Lands in Pry Little Furlong 907 One Acre in Bowsprit Furlong HOUNDSWELL FlELD looi One acre in Hayes End Furlong 1092 One Land in HoundsweU Furlong 1226 One acre in Short Furlong 1235 One acre in Short Furlong 1254 One Land in Short Furlong 1 265 One Land in Little Bushes or Rushy Furrows Furlong . . 1275 One Land in ditto 1 287 One Land in ditto 1 294 One Land in ditto 1304 One Land in ditto SoLiNGER Field 1429 One Land in Long Lands 1446 One Land in Down Furlong i486 Two Lands shooting on Oxford Way 1517 One Land in White Lands 1529 Two Lands in ditto 1543 One Land in Easington Hedge Furlong 1561 One Land in Easington Hedge Furlong 1627 One Land in Woodlands 1633 One Land in Woodlands 1661 One Land in Rood Furlong 1665 One Land in Lower Woodlands 1693 One Land in Upper Woodlands 1705 Two Lands in Marsh Furlong 1733 One Land in Long Snapper Furlong 1 75 1 Headland and Fellow in Long Snapper Furlong Scholars 1 (^ h 24 I 24 3 10 I 19 3 17 2 5 I 29 3 30 3 10 I IS I I 23 2 39 I 36 3 10 I 11 I 24 I 10 I 29 I 24 I 34 I 26 3 9 I 29 2 23 21 3 39 THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 23 It will be noticed that the parcels were distributed with con- siderable equality among the three fields. ■- Solinger field received 7I acres in 15 parcels, Sand field 9 acres in 13 parcels, Hounds- well field (with Bower End and Upper End fields) sf acres in 13 parcels. Were the terrier of an earlier date, the irregularity in apportioiunent would, as will appear elsewhere, probably have been less. The areas assigned to the parcels show approxima- tions to acre, half -acre, and quarter-acre strips; and the locations (numbers on the map correspond with numbers in the schedule) illustrate the scattering of the strips throughout the fields and furlongs. Late though the Chalgrove map and terrier be, they enable us to form a correct and vivid idea of the fundamental characteristics of the three-field system and prepare us to inter- pret ear her evidence not made graphic by contemporary maps. As pointed out in the Introduction, the most comprehensive and satisfactory descriptions of EngUsh townships are the surveys of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. At their best these note nearly everything that one could wish to know about the manors or townships to which they refer. The metes and bounds, the area of the demesne with its location and the terms upon which it was leased, the number of the freeholders and copy- holders, the holdings of each, the rents, fines, and heriots paid, the parcels of land enclosed and in open field, the nature of these, whether arable, meadow, or pasturfe, the names of the common fields and meadows, — all this, in the most extended of the sur- veys, a sworn jury of the villagers was called upon to report. The monasteries seem to have originated the custom of making such surveys, for some of the earhest are found in their cartularies of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; but the administrators of crown property proved apt pupils, and the most elaborate reports are those relative to crown estates or to manors temporarily in royal hands. During the sixteenth century the latter, of course, included many monastic properties. So long are the best surveys that it is impracticable to make extended transcripts from them. The information touching field systems is, furthermore, so interwoven with other detail that it is not readily comprehensible unless rearranged and adapted. 24 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS For these reasons it seems desirable to print in cxtcnso ex- tracts from two surveys, typical respectively of two-field and three-field townships, and to follow these with pertinent field matter abstracted from other surveys. Such is the content of Appendix I. If there was a difference in the antiquity of two-field and three- field townships, no one will doubt that the former were the earlier. Apart from any question of age, however, the simpler system calls logically for prior treatment. In an excellent series of surveys of the Glastonbury manors in Wiltshire we find pictured the condi- tion of several two-field townships as they were in 9 Henry VIII.' The descriptions are particularly minute, the location and area of open-field parcels being always stated. The survey of Soutli Damerham, one of the longest, has been printed by R. C. Hoare in his History of Modern Wiltshire; ' but so inaccessible is this bulky work that it will not be amiss to transcribe a jiart of the survey of Kington, another of the Wiltshire manors.' After the introduction, the rubric for metes and bounds, and the description of the demesne, this survey makes note of one of the important features of an old English township. It is the common. That of Kington, called Langley Heath, embraced 310 acres, and over it lord and tenants had common of pasture for all cattle throughout the year. In this there was nothing pecu- liar to a two- or a three-field village. Quite apart from the cliar- acter of its early fields, nearly every township had such a common and the tenants had rights therein. It would have been more pertinent had we been told about pasturage rights over the com- mon fields; but on that point this survey, like many others, is silent. The free tenants at Kington were four and most of their hold- ings were small. Only one held a virgate and paid so much as five shillings rent. One of them was Malmesbury Abbey and an- other the Prioress of Kington, each answerable for a messuage or two. Similarly John Saunders held in fee a tenement, rendering therefor two geese yearly. The insignificance of the freeholds ' Harl. MS. 3961. ' Cf. Appendix I, below. ' (6 vols., London, 1822-44), Appendix II, pp. 40-64. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 25 and the personal distinction of certain of the freeholders are char- acteristics that will recur. The customary tenants, or copyholders, on the contrary, were numerous and their holdings were considerable. Six were pos- sessed each of two virgates or " half-hides," seventeen of one virgate, twelve of one-half virgate, and there were two cottagers, each with three or four acres. Besides the two cotlands, six typical holdings have been transcribed,^ all showing similar characteristics. To each copyholder was assigned a messuage, a yard, a garden, and sometimes an orchard, together with a few closes held in severalty. At Kington the enclosures were larger than in most townships, comprising in general from five to ten acres. After an account of these, we reach in each case the bulk of the holding. This was arable, and for the virgatarius (the tenant of a virgate) contained about twenty acres. The dimidii hidarii (tenants of two virgates) had some forty acres each, the dimidii virgatarii about ten. The arable of each holding, except the last half- virgate, lay in two fields, usually called the North field and the West field, such being the situation of the two rela- tive to the village.^ Between the two fields the arable of the vir- gates was pretty equally divided (e. g., 10 acres vs. 95 acres) ; in some of the larger holdings, however, the Hon's share went to the North field (2 6 J acres vs. 20 acres, 24 acres vs. ig\ acres) .^ The parcels ranged in size from one-fourth acre (perticaia) to two acres, most of them being either haK-acres or quarter-acres. A virgate comprised from forty to sixty such parcels. Often more than one parcel of a holding lay in the same furlong. The re- currence of furlong names in the various holdings shows inter- mixed ownership. There is in the survey nothing about the shape of the parcels, but it is safe to ass\une that where several acre and half-acre parcels lay in the same fiurlong they were long and narrow. 1 In Appendix I. The first two or three of each size have been selected. 2 In the first holding East field replaces North field; but, as certain of the furlong names are those of North-field furlongs, the East and North fields can- not have been distinct. ^ The last halt-virgater held, along with his half-virgate, some twenty acres of demesne, which lay mainly in the East field. 26 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Since no plan of Kington is available, the appearance of a two-field township may be illustrated by the enclosure map of Croxton, Lincolnshire.^ As the accompanying cut shows, this rectangular township was in 1810 divided by the highway into an East field and a West field, while to the north lay the sheep-walk. Map III Adjacent to the village on the southeast were a few closes, appar- ently taken from the moor. The two arable fields remained nearly intact and were similar in size. If in imagination we fill them with furlongs and strips, the plan will represent not inade- quately the situation described in the Kington survey. Between two- and three-field townships, as has been said, there was no essential difference in principle. The one divided its ' C. P. Recov. Ro., 52 Geo. Ill, Trin. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 27 arable between two large fields, the other among three. The former tilled one-half of the arable each year, the latter two- thirds, the parts which remained fallow being respectively one- half and one-third. In consequence of having an additional field, the three-field township subdivided each copyhold into three ap- proximately equal parts. This feature is emphasized in another survey, abstracts from which follow the Kington descriptions in Appendix I. Handborough in central Oxfordshire is a large township which from the thirteenth century has formed a part of the manor of Woodstock.^ In 1606 it was surveyed as royal property, and the resultant supervisus is an excellent illustration of the work of the royal commissioners. The freeholders, who were of the curious sort said to hold " libere per copiam," were much more numerous than the freeholders at Kington. About fifty are named. The two who held most land were persons of quality, viz., George Cole, Gent., with three messuages and 11 J acres, and the heirs of M. Culpepper, Kt., with two messuages and i6i acres. In both instances most of the acres did not He in the open fields, and an- other freehold of ten acres was partly woodland. Sometimes the freeholder was without a messuage, and he might also, as inspec- tion shows, be a copyholder (in the strict sense of the term) who, in addition to a substantial copyhold, held a small parcel of land freely. Such was Roger Brooke, the first on the list. For the most part, however, the " liberi tenentes per copiam " were per- sons who held merely a messuage and a small close or parcel of land attached. The entire fifty had not a dozen acres in the open fields, and in no instance was there a distribution of acres among fields. At Handborough, as at Kington, the holdings of free tenants are of little value for the study of field systems. With the customary holdings the case is strikingly different. Almost every one of these supplies information about the open fields. There were forty customary tenements held by thirty-six persons, all tenements except three having messuages. Apart from a half-dozen instances the virgate equivalent of the acreage ' A. Ballard, "Woodstock Manor in the Thirteenth Century,'' Vierteljahrschrift fiir Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1908, vi. 424. 28 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS is given. Each of three tenants held one and one-half virgates, ten others a virgate apiece, the remainder for the most part half a virgate apiece. The normal virgate comprised three or four acres in the common meadow, from five to ten acres of enclosed land, and between seven and ten acres in each of three common arable fields. Often the arable acres of the holdings were almost exactly divided among the three fields (lo, lo, 8; 4, 5, 4J; 3, 3!, 3^). At times, however, there were discrepancies which might give to one field as many as five or six acres more than to another (15, 9, 9; 6i, iif, 7; 4,3, li)- The number of parcels into which the arable was divided is not stated, as it usually is not in the surveys of Jacobean days. On the other hand, we are told more about the common meadows than at Kington, and learn that each holding had half-acre or quarter-acre parcels in them. There is further an obvious intention to give information about the pasturage rights of the customary tenants. Nearly always occurs the ab- breviation " communia pasture ut supra." But we refer back in vain; for either a foUo is gone, or, as is more likely, the foHos as they stand at present have been incorrectly rearranged. Toward the end of the survey descriptions of three holdings specify com- mon of pasture " in omnibus Campis, etc.," " in omnibus Com- muniis, etc.," and "in Einsham heath and Kinges Heath." '■ The first statement, to the effect that there was common of pasture in all fields {campus is the usual term for arable field), undoubt- edly represents the existent rights. The somewhat full extracts from the surveys of Kington and Handborough will perhaps serve to make clear the nature of our most detailed evidence about English field systems.^ For specific and decisive pronouncements Tudor and Jacobean sur- veys will continually have to be relied upon, and in the light of what they reveal the earlier testimony from many regions of ' Cf. Appendix I, below, pp. 434-436. ' In one respect the Handborough situation was somewhat unusual. The demesne was farmed, not to two or three or a half-dozen lessees in large parcels, but to some thirty-six persons, nearly all customary tenants. These leaseholds usually comprised less than ten acres each, and frequently lay outside the three common fields in areas called the Great Hide and the Little Hide. The title was " per copiam," and the tenure seems very like copyhold of inheritance. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 29 England will have to be interpreted. At this point it is there- fore pertinent to inquire what counties can furnish two- and three- field surveys like those above examined; for an answer to this question will indicate roughly the extent of the system at the end of the sixteenth century. It is clear that not every holding in a township need be in- stanced to prove that the arable lay in two or three large open fields. It is equally clear that freeholds, by reason of their small- ness, their irregularity, and the social status of their proprietors, were unrepresentative. Descriptions of copyholds, on the other hand, nearly always reflect a two- or three-field system by the approximately equal distribution of their arable between two or three fields; hence ten or a dozen such descriptions from a town- ship will suffice to inform us of the field arrangements existing there. Adaptations of this sort have been made from several surveys and arranged in Appendix I to show the extension of the system illustrated by the surveys of Kington and Hand- borough.i ^ Tudor and Jacobean surveys of two-field manors most often come from the upland region which begins with the northern Cotswolds and extends to the Channel. Traversing it in this manner, we start with a long Jacobean survey of Upper and Nether Brailes, a township of southeastern Warwickshire. The holdings are estimated in virgates of from eight to twenty acres, all of them divided with precision between North field and South field. There were practically no enclosures save the acre or two attached to each messuage, but there was considerable meadow, some five acres being appurtenant to the virgate. The tenants had stinted common of pasture in as many as nine pastures. On the eastern slopes of the Cotswolds, just over from Brailes, were many two-field Oxfordshire townships, well illustrated by Shipton-under-Wychwood, a survey of which was made in 6 Edward VI. The customary holdings here usually formed con- siderable farms of more than one virgate each, the virgate itself containing as many as forty acres. To each farm were attached a ' The sources from which they are drawn are noted in each case, and the town- ships to which they refer are located on the map which faces the title-page. 30 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS small close and a few acres of meadow. In half of the customary holdings the division of arable acres between the East and West fields was equal; in the other half there was some inequality, usually in favor of the East field. Two monastic manors of the Gloucestershire Cotswolds, Charl- ton Abbots and Weston Birt, were surveyed with many others in the time of Edward VI. In both the virgates were large, con- taining in one township 48 acres of arable and in the other about 40 acres. The division of acres between the North field and the East field of Charlton was even, between the North field and the South field of Weston Birt nearly even. In neither township did the copyholds have other closes than those near the callage. With each virgate at Charlton went nine acres in the common meadow, with a virgate at Weston Birt seldom so much as an acre. The extension of the Cotswold area into Somerset brings us, a little south from Bath, to South Stoke, which in 6 James I was surveyed as one of the queen's manors. Here the enclosures were larger, containing from ten to twenty acres in each holding. Occa- sionally they had encroached upon the common arable fields, as had those of Lawrence Smythe and Thomas Hudd. Such at least seems to be the inference, since except in these instances the arable was assigned in nearly equal parts to the East and West fields. The meadow, too, had been enclosed. Thus, although the township was obviously one of two fields, there had already begun an attack upon the integrity of the system which we shall see farther advanced in most townships of Somerset. In the large Dorsetshire township of Gillingham the same change was under way in 6 James I. It had here gone so far that inequality in the division of the arable of a holding between the two fields was frequent. In some holdings meadow and pasture even predominated over the arable; but the general apportion- ment of the latter to the two fields, South and North,i leaves no doubt that a two-field system is described. Such are typical surveys from six of the counties in which the two-field system was most often apparent. Berkshire, perhaps more extensively characterized by two-field townships than any ' A third unimportant field occasionally appears. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 3 I of them, should be added to the list. The Glastonbury manor of Ashbury was in Berkshire, and of this we have a survey similar in date and character to that of Kington, described above.^ The upland parts of these seven counties form a compact area in the southwest, characterized by high, bleak down-land not favorable to a developed type of agriculture. Hence in this region the two- field system Hngered, httle changed, at least until the seventeenth century. We shall see that it was, as might be expected, the prevalent type there at an early date. There were two outlying areas in which at the end of the six- teenth century it was possible to find two-field townships as un- changed as in the Cotswold counties. One such township was Wellow, in the Isle of Wight. Here, in a Jacobean survey, the customary holdings divided their arable with great consistency and considerable equahty between an East field and a West field.^ Such surveys from the Isle of Wight are, however, so infrequent that a two-field system can hardly be said to have retained much hold upon the island in the days of James I. ^/ It was different with the other outljdng area, the so-called wolds of Lincolnshire, where two-field townships were as strongly in- trenched as in the Cotswolds or the Wiltshire downs. The Jaco- bean surveys of Humberston and Alvingham have been chosen for illustration. Both townships had an East field and a West field, and both divided the tenants' arable with marked precision between the two. There was considerable common meadow at Humberston, at Alvingham rather more enclosed pasture. In all respects the townships were of the strictly two-field type. To show how often the three-field system is apparent in Tudor and Jacobean surveys a longer list of counties than the one just given is required. Among the counties where it rivalled the two-field system were some in which the Cotswold highlands gave place here and there to more fertile areas. Such was Oxfordshire, which has already furnished us the survey of Handborough. Such was Warwickshire throughout most of the valley of the Avon. Such too were the three counties of the south- ' Harl. MS. 3961, £f. 117-133. The fields were East and West. 2 Cf. Appendix I, below, p. 440. 32 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS west from each of which an example of the two-field system has been drawn, Wiltshire, Somerset, and Dorset. It will be in- structive to parallel the two-field surveys already examined with those picturing three-field arrangements in these last three counties.^ In southeastern Somerset, where the hills give way to the great plain, hes the large manor of Martock, surveyed in 1-2 Philip and Mary. Four townships were included, Martock, Hurst, Cote, and Bower Henton, and each of the four had its independent group of three fields. Ten of the twenty-nine copyholds at Bower Henton are summarized in Appendix I. Each comprised a mes- suage, a small close, and an amount of enclosed pasture about equal in area to the arable Ipng in any one of the three fields. Frequently the survey notes that the enclosure of the pasture was recent. Each copyholder had also from four to six acres of common meadow. The remainder of his holding was arable, divided with Httle variation among the South, East, and West fields. The recurrence of this characteristic, reproduced as it is in the other townships of the manor, fixes the three-field system upon southeastern Somerset. But the manor was somewhat of an outpost, and we shall not find much similar evidence west of Martock. Over the cotmty border in Dorset, however, the survey can be matched by a similar one descriptive of Hinton St. Mary in the reign of Elizabeth. Here the enclosures were even more exten- sive than at Bower Henton, and nearly equalled the area of the open field. Some tenants had enclosures only; but most of them continued to have at least half of their acres in the common arable fields, distributed, though not very evenly, between North field, S6uth field, and West field. Not dissimilar is the long Jacobean survey of the Wiltshire manor of Ashton Keynes. In it the holdings are estimated in virgates, a circvmistance which assures us that they had a long tradition behind them. About one-third of the total copyhold land was enclosed and was largely pasture. Some closes had re- sulted from encroachments upon the arable fields, the holdings of ' Copyholds from all the surveys about to be cited are tabulated in Appendix I. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 33 Joanna Archard and Joanna Syninge having thus decreased con- siderably their acreage in the East field. Elsewhere, although the distribution of the acres of a holding between East field, North field, and Westham was not so precise as in many townships, discrepancies are not great enough to call in question the existence of a three-field husbandry. If we make an excursion from the southwestern counties toward the east and north, we shall enter the less disputed domain of the three-field system. Hampshire and Sussex contribute two excel- lent terrier-surveys of Battle Abbey manors made in the early years of Henry VI. Like the Glastonbury series, they describe each open-field parcel, and the number of these has been indi- cated in parentheses in the brief summaries given in Appendix I. The small manor of Ansty lay in northeastern Hampshire, and its fields bore the conventional names of South, Middle, and East. The holdings were not estimated by virgates, but nearly every one, except those held at the will of the lord, had its mes- suage or toft. A few were small, but even these contained an acre or more in each field. It is in two or three of the larger holdings that some unequal distribution appears, an inequality which, so far as we can see, was not compensated for by the possession of en- closed arable. Such occasional deviations from the general prac- tice should not be taken as evidence that a township did not fall within the three-field group. They remind us, rather, that de- scriptions of several holdings are often needed to give assurance in these matters. The Sussex survey describes the manor of Alciston as it was subdivided into " borga," a term apparently implying distinct townships. Two of the borga were Blatchington and Alfriston, alike in their field arrangements, of which the descriptions of a half-dozen copyholds and two demesne leaseholds at Alfriston are Olustrative. In these we are introduced to a new terminology. Instead of virgates we meet with " wistae," instead of fields with " leynes." Both terms were peculiar to Sussex and occur often in the Battle cartulary. Each wista contained about eighteen acres, and the assignment of its acre and half-acre strips to the three lej-nes. North, Middle, and South, was on the principle of 34 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS exact division. Since Alfriston and Blatchington are at the east- ern end of the Sussex coastal plain, the three-field system reached at least thus far. Just as the manor of Martock in Somerset, however, was a western outpost, so these townships of the manor of Alciston will prove to be points beyond which it is difficult to discover the existence of the three-field system in southeastern England. Turning northward, we may add to the description of Hand- borough briefer accounts of two manors which, Hke it, lay in the southern midlands. At the end of the sixteenth century there were drawn up for All Souls College, Oxford, maps of its estates in various counties. These are now bound together in volumes known as the Typus CoUegii.' Among them is a map of Salford, Bedfordshire, accompanied by a schedule which gives names of tenants and areas of the parcels shown on the map. Apart from the glebe and three other small freeholds, the township is assigned to the " tenants of the college grounds." Chief of these was Martha Langford, who had i6o acres of arable and 112 acres of pasture, all enclosed. This was clearly the old demesne. The other tenants represented the old copyholders. In general each had a few acres of enclosed pasture, a few of " pasture and lea ground " not farther described, and a few of " meadow in the fields." But the most of each holding lay in the three open arable fields in many parcels.^ Brooke, Middle, and Wood were the names of the fields, two of them persisting to the time of the en- closure of the township in 1805. At that date Middle field had been subdivided into Lower and Upper fields, although the total open-field area remained almost imchanged. In 1595 the sub- division of the holdings among the three fields was more con- sistently unequal than in any other survey yet examined. In the larger holdings fewer acres were assigned to Middle field than to Brook or to Wood field, apparently because the demesne arable lay largely in this field. Five or six of its furlongs were entirely • I am indebted to the warden, Sir William Anson, and to the Rev. A. H. Johnson for the privilege of examining them. ' The number of parcels in each holding is noted in the abstract given in the Appendix. A part of the Salford map is reproduced by Tawney, Agrarian Problem, p. 163. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 35 demesne, whereas Brook field had only one demesne furlong and Wood field not any. Such concentration of the arable demesne in furlongs, and these furlongs in one field, is unusual; but even this can hardly have affected seriously the three-field character of the township. A very detailed survey of the township of Welford, North- amptonshire, made in 1602, is preserved in an eighteenth-century copy in the Bodleian. The township comprised two manors, that of Wilham Saunders and that of the " late dissolved monastery of Sulby," then the queen's. The first manor consisted of the demesne and the holdings of several "tenants at wiU"; the second was in the hands of " ancient freeholders," " new free- holders," and " the Queen's patentees," the last probably repre- senting the copyholders under the monastery. In Appendix I several holdings of three kinds have been summarized in order to show how various tenures fitted into the same field framework. The tenements were rated in \'irgates. There were no closes except the homestalls, each tenant's holding lying in the open fields, where were also his strips of meadow or " lay ground." Among the three fields, named Hemplow, Middle, and Abbey, the acres of the %'irgates were, except in a few instances, divided with- out prejudice. In most respects this survey is a model one, since it gives the names of all fiirlongs, with the area and location of each open-field strip. Selected holdings from four northern surveys will complete our three-field itinerary. A Jacobean account of Lutterworth, Lei- cestershire, illustrates a feature characteristic of many midland and northern field-books, the distribution of several parcels of meadow or " leys " among the arable fields. Here the tenants' strips of meadow, instead of being segregated near a stream, were disposed here and there throughout the arable area. Just as at Welford, certain furlongs which began with arable strips ended with strips of " ley " ; and the meadow in each field amoxmted to as much as one-third of the arable there. In other respects the survey is of the normal three-field type. RoUeston, a township of eastern Staffordshire, presents the novelty of six fields instead of three. In the Elizabethan survey 36 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the first holding groups these by twos, an arrangement that will be found to apply pretty well to most of the other holdings, thus reducing the township to one of practically three fields. In several instances the division of acres was not so exact as that to which we have been accustomed (e. g., 4^, 6, 7; 3I, t\, 3); yet, if all the holdings be considered, it will be seen that in only about one- fourth of them was there such inequality of division as to make the existence of a three-field system questionable. The remaining three-fourths reassure us on this point, though Rolleston, too, was something of an outpost, for there were not many three-field townships beyond it to the northwest. Typical of the fields of southern Yorkshire is the Jacobean de- scription of Elloughton. Here the holdings were rated in ox- gangs, a single one of which comprised, along with some two acres of meadow, two or three acres in each of the three fields (South- east, Middle, and Mihie) . The township contained many hold- ings of about this size and character, although the oxgangs some- times accumulated in the hands of one tenant to the number of four or more. In southern Durham, Jacobean surveys record several three- field townships, of which Ingleton was one. In none was there a rating by bovates, and in all the tenants held by letters patent rather than by copy. Each holding had its two or three acres of common meadow and a few additional acres of enclosed meadow. Some of the latter may have been abstracted from the common fields; for when enclosed meadow appears in a holding there is also some inequahty in the distribution of arable acres among the fields. Although more remains to be said about this tendency in Durham, the Ingleton acres as they lay in 5 James I had not yet departed far from a three-field arrangement. From all of the counties which have thus far furnished illustra- tive surveys of the two- and three-field systems it would be easy to increase the amount of similarly indubitable evidence. There remains, however, one region for which the three-field testimony is relatively slight and for that reason deserving of careful con- sideration. It comprises the counties of Herefordshire and Shrop- shire, the greater part of the old Welsh border. As we shall see THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 37 later, considerable irregularity is visible in the field system of these counties at the end of the sixteenth century.' Hence it is pertinent to inquire how clearly a three-field system may be dis- cerned within their limits in Jacobean days. Several surveys need be cited,^ a course the more necessary since there were few holdings in any township; for it is characteristic of these counties that the townships were only of hamlet size, and that many of them were grouped within one manor.' , Perhaps the most unimpeachable testimony to the existence of a three-field system in Herefordshire at the end of the sixteenth century is discernible in a survey of the manor of Stoke Prior. Situated in the northern part of the county, this manor comprised in the days of the survey several hamlets. At Stoke itself all copy- holds and freeholds were apportioned to three fields, Blakardyn, Elford's, and Church, although the acres of the last field some- times have to be supplied from outlying areas pretty clearly con- nected with it. At Risbury a more exact division of acres than that existing between Muston field, Mere field, and Inn field could not be desired. At Hennor we hear of only one tenant, a freeholder, whose arable acres none the less lay in three fields. Another Herefordshire manor whose members seem to have employed the three-field system was Stockton. In the hamlet of Stockton the number of fields was considerable, but between two of them, Rowley's field and Rade field, each tenant had about two-thirds of his acres pretty evenly divided. All the remaining fields may well be grouped as a third large field, playing this part relative to the other two. One holding, that of William Bach, had precisely twenty acres in each of these three areas. The three tenants in the hamlet of Hamnashe likewise divided their acres among three fields. At Kimbolton, another hamlet of the manor, five fields recur; but, as at Stockton, two of them are each as important as a combination of the other three. From Shropshire we have only one brief survey which illus- trates the three-field system. It describes four copyholds in the fields of Mawley and Prysley, hamlets of the manor of Cleo- bury. While there was much enclosed pasture here, the arable of ' C£. below, pp. 93 sq. 2 cf. Appendix I. » Cf. below, pp. 95, 141. 38 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the holdings, two of which are said to have been virgates, lay- equally divided among three fields. Other Shropshire evidence, not less convincing, is of a different nature. It appears inciden- tally in a specification of boundaries that forms part of an elaborate survey of Morffe forest made in the early seventeenth century.' Morffe forest, which contained 3600 acres and was divided into two manors known as Worfield Hohne and Claverley Holme, lay near the Severn, between that river and the Stafford- shire boundary. Common rights^thin the forest resided in the townships that bordered it. In assessing these rights the sur- vey states the areas within each township that had vahd claims, noting which fields were arable. In several cases these fields were three in number, and their comparatively large size and rela- tively equal areas make it highly probable that they were in each instance the three common fields of the hamlet in question. The Ust is as follows: — Hamlet g Areas in Acres of the Fields " common to " each Hamlet Bromley 104, 74, 106 Swancote 34) 3°) 34 Hoccum Lopp 25, 27, 4i, with 15 other acres in two parcels Barnsley 31 (Windsor field), 5, 28, 33 Roughton 119 (Anesdale field), 134, 103 Wyken 49, 59, 49 Dallicott 58, 32, 38 Hopstone 20, 30, 58 (Ley field) 34 (SnedweU), 50 (Middle field), 53 (Poole field) Aston 69, 48, 77 A smaller number of the abutting townships possessed arable fields less regular than those noted above. They belong to a class, numerous in this region, which will be discussed later.^ If we disregard this class, the foregoing list of fields seems confirma- tory of the surveys, and taken in conjunction with them gives 1 Land Rev., M. B. 203, ff. 305-327. ' Cf. pp. 93 sq., below. The hamlets bordering upon Morffe forest which had irregular fields were as follows: — Hamlet Areas of the Fields in Acres Burcott 44 (Mill field), 24 (Woodcroft field), 23 (common to Burcott) 70 (belonging to Burcott), 35 (belonging to Burcott) Mose 21 (Bass field), 103 (with 67 acres more) Sitchhouse 56, 44, 46, 13, 16 (" lately inclosed out of Clarely common field") Sutton 48 (Home field), 102 Ludstone 43, 6, 48 THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 39 assurance that the three-field system extended up to the Welsh border. After this marshalling of typical Tudor and Jacobean surveys from several counties, it should be possible to single out the char- acteristic features of the two- and three-field system; for only by the aid of such data, as has been said above, can the earlier and more fragmentary evidence be interpreted. The history of Enghsh open fields reaches far back of the sixteenth century, and testimony in regard to this earlier time is at hand in the docu- ments described in the Introduction. A method of interpreting them remains to be sought. In drawing up our hst of charac- teristic features we may treat two- and three-field arrangements as a single system that will in due course have to be contrasted with other systems. What, then, is the minimum of information which an early charter, fine, terrier, or extent must supply in order to give assurance that the township to which it refers was cultivated after the manner of Kington or Handborough ? First of all, testimony to the existence of two or three large open fields (campi) is essential. If the open-field area was so small that the total amount of it in the tenants' occupation was less than their enclosures, no need existed for the cultivation of the arable in the manner dictated by two- or three-field hus- bandry. In such cases reliance could be put upon the tillage of the enclosures, and irregularities in the distribution of arable acres among the open fields could thus be corrected. In circumstances like these it is possible that the two- and three-field system may once have been existent but its integrity have been in time im- paired. The tenants had perhaps seen fit to change part of their arable to pasture; and the holdings of certain tenants who thus converted a part of their open arable field have been noted at South Stoke, Ashton Keynes, and Ingleton. Such conversion is always a sign of the decay of the original system. The preceding illustrations have shown that the normal enclosed area in two- or three-field townships seldom exceeded one-third of the arable, and usually was much less. Suspicion will therefore attach to any terrier in which the ratio tends to be reversed and closes incline to predominate over the open-field arable in any holding. 40 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Closely bound up with this first characteristic of the two- and three-field system is the further one that the arable acres of a hold- ing were divided with approximate equality between the two or three fields. This is unquestionably the fundamental trait of the system under consideration. It depends, of course, upon the fact that a fixed ratio had to be maintained year after ^ear between tilled land and fallow. Under the two-field system the ratio was one to one, under the three-field system two to one. Any de- parture from an equal division of the acres of a holding between fields involved shortage for the tenant during the year in which his largest group of acres lay fallow. Increased abundance the ensuing year could scarcely repair the loss to a peasantry which probably lived close to the margin of subsistence. The diflaculty would be greater in a two-field than in a three-field township, since a shortage of acres would there be more frequently and more acutely felt. The approximately equal distribution of the acres of a holding between two or three fields must therefore be em- ployed as a crucial test. A single terrier which evinces it consti- tutes strong testimony to the existence of the system. If, on the other hand, not one but nearly all of the tenant-holdings fail to observe it, the township can scarcely be looked upon as lying in two or three fields. An arrangement of six fields by twos, like that at Rolleston, was only an unimportant modification of the three-field system. The phrase " tenant-holdings," which has just been used, needs restricting. As the Kington and Handborough surveys show, and as many other surveys would emphasize if they were to be analyzed in full, freeholds are likely to throw Uttle Hght upon field systems. At least, this is true with regard to town- ships in which they did not constitute the majority of the holdings. In certain manors, especially in the eastern counties, freeholds assumed such an agrarian importance that they can be relied upon. Elsewhere they were generally small, not largely com- posed of open-field arable, Kable to be without messuage, and frequently in the possession of an absentee proprietor, who was often a corporation or a person of importance. For these reasons they have been seldom cited in the preceding abstracts. Nor can THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 4 1 they henceforth be depended upon in either the earUer or the later evidence to disprove the existence of two or three fields. In other words, the fact that a half-dozen freeholds, or even all the free- holds of a township, were not amenable to two- or three-field condi- tions does^not prove that this system was there in disfavor. On the other hand, a single freehold which did divide its arable acres equally between two or three fields is a satisfactory bit of evidence in favor of the existence of the system. Such were the ancient freeholds at Welford, and such was the glebe at Salford. Free- holds, in short, have affirmative, not negative, value. The desir- able tenures for our purpose are copyholds, or the leaseholds into which they were sometimes transformed, as they probably were at Welford and Ingleton. Henceforth, therefore, copyholds, whenever available, will be cited in proof or disproof of the exist- ence of the two- or three-field system. Freeholds will be relied upon only in default of other evidence or when their significance is clear. — The superior value of copyholds depends in part upon one of their characteristics which leads in turn to a fourth useful test in the interpretation of field systems. Copyholds were usually rated in virgates or bovates, each of which was responsible for a fiixed quotum of rents and services. Probably to avoid inconven- ience in the collection of rents and the exaction of services, the virgates and bovates, except again in some eastern counties, re- mained little changed for centuries. Division appears to have been unusual after the thirteenth century, and consolidation is first apparent in the sixteenth-century surveys. The virgate, therefore, represented a holding of long standing, originally de- signed to support a peasant family which could muster two oxen for the plough. In Somerset such traditional holdings were some- times called, instead of virgates, " de antique austro." ' Al- though the virgates differed in size from township to township, within any particular one they were approximately equal in area, as the foregoing surveys have often shown. For an investigation of the early history of the two- and three-field system no frag- mentary evidence is so valuable as the terrier of a virgate. It is ' Survey of Kingsbury Episcopi, Land Rev., M. B. 202 ff., 199-253. 42 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the best assurance that there were other similar holdings in the township, and that the acres of all were arranged in the fields much as were the acres about which we are informed. There were, to be sure, unrepresentative virgates.' Yet when one con- siders how many virgate and bovate descriptions were cast in the same pattern, and that pattern perfectly indicative of the field system of the township, the significance of the copyhold virgate terrier is appreciated. While a single terrier may thus go far to estabhsh the existence of the two- and three-field system, more than the terrier of one virgate is needed to disprove its existence. The virgate in question may have been exceptional. Only by the testimony of several irregular virgates from the same region, and preferably from the same township, can it be made clear that the two- and three-field system was non-existent there. Upon this principle several of the following chapters have been written. In the earlier evidence, however, it seldom happens that we get descriptions of virgates, bovates, or the halves of either. Nor are reasonably large holdings of any sort, whether copyhold, leasehold, or freehold, always described. The acres of early terriers and charters were frequently few in number; and we must ask what confidence is to be put in those grants of land which not only omit an estimate by virgates or bovates, but in addition convey not more than three or four acres ? The answer brings us to a fifth characteristic of the two- and three-field sys- tem which at this point is more or less decisive. We perceive, in short, that much depends upon the names of the fields. It will have been noted that the names of the fields in Tudor and Jacobean surveys were simple, being usually taken from those points of the compass toward which the fields lay with respect to the village — north, east, south, or west. Often in a two-field manor they were named from opposite points, although at King- ton the fields were North and West. The fields again might get their names from the topography of the place, and become Upper ' For example, the half-virgate of Richard Waller at Handborough, Oxons., that of Robert Sell at Shipton-under-Wychwood, Oxons., that of Joanna Syninge at Ashton Keynes, WUts, and that of Theron Symes at Welford, Northants. Cf. Appendix I. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 43 and Lower; in a three-field township the third field might be- come Middle field. Other topographical features sonietimes gave the hint. At Salford, for example, Wood field was near the wood and Brook field along the stream. Names like these are what may be called the obvious and usual field names. Accord- ingly, if in an early charter we discover two acres in three or four parcels lying in the West field of a township and two other acres similarly subdivided in the East field, the probability is that the grant points to a two-field township. In these cases it is always desirable to find a series of such grants (frequently met with in monastic cartularies), and the evidence is more or less convinc- ing as the region is otherwise known to be or not to be one of two fields. Testimony of this sort has been noted in Appendix II, and may be accepted for what it is worth. If the field names appear fanciful, the grant either has been omitted, or has been included only because it is in keeping with what is otherwise known about the region. Thus far attention has been given only to testimony drawn from descriptions of freeholds or of copyholds (sometimes chang- ing into leaseholds). The third constituent of the manor, the demesne, has not been noticed. It is, in fact, less important than copyholds in helping us determine field systems, since it so often lay without the open fields. Even if it was largely within them it might be irregularly apportioned, as at Salford. If we can be sure, however, that it lay with the tenants' holdings in the open common fields, the even distribution of its arable between two or three fields is as significant a fact as the Hke distribution of copyholds. Only occasionally do the extents make this point clear. Often they tell us in what field divisions the demesne lay, but frequently these appear to have been numerous. In such cases either the demesne acres were consolidated and the field names refer to large plats, perhaps closes ; or, if the acres were not con- solidated, we have no clue to the relation existing between the numerous areas named and the field system employed. Such non-committal descriptions have to be disregarded. Sometimes in the extents, however, the demesne arable is said to lie equally divided between only two or three fields, and these bear the usual 44 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS field names. In such cases we may conclude that the field system is correctly indicated. Many extents are to be found in a group of documents which for this reason are of significance in the study of field systems. These documents are the inquisitions post mortem, preserved in large numbers among the pubUc records. During a period of about a century (c. 1270-1370) we find inserted in many such enumerations of the property of deceased fief-holders or free- holders extents of their manors. Nearly always the extents are brief, dismissing the demesne acres with an estimate of their an- nual value; but occasionally a note of explanation is added, and this is the item which relates to field systems. It states that one- half or two-thirds of the demesne may be sown each year, and that when so sown the acres are worth a certain amount. The re- maining one-half or one-third, the extent continues, is worth nothing since it lies fallow and — the phrase is sometimes added — " since it lies in common." ' Thus we are introduced to what might at first sight seem an equivalent of the two- or three-field system, namely, the two- or three-course rotation of crops. Much, however, depends upon keeping the two subjects distinct. Let it be at once admitted that the existence of a system of two or three fields in any township implies that a two- or three-course method of tillage was there followed. If one-half or one-third of the common arable open-field area lay fallow each year, the parts successively tilled were imdoubtedly sown with nearly the same crops year after year. Any series of bailiffs' accounts will make this clear.^ The reverse of the generalization, however, is not ' For example, at Corby, Northants, there was a messuage with 180 acres of arable, " unde vi =" possunt seminari per annum quarura quelibet acra valet . . . iii d. . . . et residuum iacet ad Warectam et tunc nihil valet quia in communi " (C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 44 (6)). C£. the phraseology in Appendix II. ' At Gamlingay in Cambridgeshire, for instance, the demesne lay in three open fields (Merton College map of 1601). A series of bailiffs' accounts from the end of the thirteenth century records the sowing of grains during four years, as follows (Merton Col. Recs., nos. 5355-58): — Year rrumentumfct] Siligo Dragetumfet] Pisafct] Avena 21-22 Edw. I [illegible] lo qr. 7 bu. 20 qr. s bu. 2 qr. 4 qr. 22-23 " I4gr. 4}bu. 10 7 2Q 3j 2 4 ibu. 23-24 " 12 4J II 4 18 6 1 7bu. 3 7i 24-25 " 16 I 92 25 2 22 62 More spring corn than winter corn was required to sow an acre. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 45 equally true. A two- or three-course rotation of crops did not necessarily imply a two- or three-field system. If we have evi- dence pointing to the former as characteristic of the tillage of demesne lands, or even of the tillage of the entire township, it does not follow that demesne or tenants' holdings had their acres equally divided between two or three large fields. All might have been enclosed and yet a two- or three-course rotation of crops have been found acceptable; for this rotation was adaptable to various field systems. Only in connection with two or three large open fields, intermixed acres, and the annual use of one of the fields as common fallow pasture did it become a constituent part of the two- and three-field system. With this in mind we may undertake the interpretation of those phrases of the extents which relate to the tillage of the demesne. If the value of two-thirds of the demesne is estimated but the remaining third is said to be worth nothing because fallow, this is insufficient to assure us that the agricultural system was one of two or three fields. Such a statement was appUcable to en- closed demesne where the pasturage of the fallow was not deemed to be of value.' Again, it is not sufficient to be told, as we often are, that the demesne lands lay in common "while unsown"; for this remark may have referred to the period after harvest, when under various systems these lands would have been thrown open. We must know that the period of common pasturage extended throughout the year.^ Finally, it must be made clear what fraction of the demesne lay fallow and common. Unless it were one-half or one-third, there is no necessary approach to a two- or three-field system. ' To be sure, unsown demesne did sometimes have a definite value as pasture. In several Essex extents, for example, the arable acres were worth 4 d. " quando seminantur, et quando non seminantur valet inde pastura . . . pretium acre ii d." (C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 67 (10), Latchingdon, 17 Edw. III). But it is not quite certain that these unsown acres were fallowed. Their value was rather high for fallow stubble, and some sort of grass may have been grown after the com years. In general, enclosed fallow was probably worth little and so escaped valuation. ^ The description of fifty acres of arable at Wrentham, Suffolk, for instance, states that they were worth 2 d. the acre " quum seminantur, et quum non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi " (C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 60 (6), 13 Edw. 46 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Even when all the specifications just insisted upon are met, and we are told that one-half or one-third of the demesne lay fallow and common throughout the entire year and for this reason was of no value to the lord, there remains an element of doubt. Did the fraction in question lie in one of two or three large fields ? There is no guarantee that such was the case. Even if, as rarely happens, it be said to lie " in communi campo," the distribution may have been irregular throughout the commonable area. We have seen it so at Salford, Bedfordshire, in the sixteenth century, and yet the preceding specifications could probably have been met in a description of the demesne there. For our present purpose, which is the determination of those two- and three-field charac- teristics that will enable us to interpret the early evidence, it is sufficient to accept the following working h)^thesis: If the arable of the demesne be described in an inquisition-extent as lying one-half or one-third fallow each year, with the fallow acres of no value because commonable, this may be taken as evidence that a two- or three-field system was employed in the township, provided that other testimony shows the system to have been characteristic of the region in question; but if other testimony be against the existence of the two- or three-field system in the county or district in which the township lies, the evidence of the extent will have to be weighed against this other testimony and an independent conclusion reached. Such balancing of evidence must be undertaken in examining the field systems of certain counties of the southeast. In those counties in which there can be no doubt about the general prevalence of the two- and three- field system, the phrases of the extents may be quoted without further discussion. They have been extracted from the inquisi- tions post mortem for a period of ten years (7-16 Edward III), certain others have been added, and in Appendix II all have been placed last in the collection of early evidence relative to each III). In contrast with this vague phrase the account of six hiuidred acres at Lidgate in the same county is entirely specific. Two hundred of them " iacent quolibet tertio anno ad warectam et in communi per totum annum et tunc nihil valent "; the remaining four hundred "iace[n]t in communi a tempore asporta- tionis bladorum usque festum Annunciationis beate Marie [i. e., from September till March] " (ibid., F. 41 (19), 9 Edw. III). THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 47 county.i By this device their somewhat questionable testimony need not be confused with other authority. A final characteristic of the two- and three-field system is im- plicit in these statements made by the extents relative to the demesne. This feature is the existence of common rights of pasturage throughout the year over the field which lay fallow, and, when the other field or fields were not under crops, over them as well. The meadows, too, we know, were thrown open after the hay was removed. Only slight traces of these usages appear in the sixteenth-century surveys. At times after each copyhold entry we are told what were the tenant's rights of pas- ture,^ but more often the rights over the arable fields and meadows were assumed to be inherent in the system and were not men- tioned. Pasturage rights in the fell, the marsh, or the moor re- ceived more attention, especially if such waste land had to be stinted; earlier legal documents, too, especially cases before the courts and agreements between neighboring lords, tell something about these rights of pasture. All this, however, is of no immedi- ate interest in discriminating between field systems. Practically all townships at an early time had their waste, in which tenants had common of pasture. One influence only the waste had upon the tillage of the arable fields, and this arose from the relative size of the two areas. If in any township the waste was extensive in comparison with the open-field arable, utihzation of the latter for pasturage might be a matter of little moment, the former sufficing for the cattle and sheep. In consequence, deviation from a strict two- or three-field system in the cultivation of the arable and in the rotation of crops became relatively easy. This aspect of things will claim attention in the counties of the northwest, where for the most part the waste did predominate over the arable. It may also have had much to do with the irregularities which we shall discover in the arable fields of townships situated within forest areas.' Though seldom specifically noticed in the manorial documents, the right of pasturage over the arable fallow was so bound up with ' The phraseology of each extent is noted in the transcripts. 2 Cf. Appendix II. ' Cf . pp. 84-88, below. 48 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the nature of the two- and three-field system that it would not be altogether incorrect to call it the determining idea of that system. Why divide the arable into two or three (possibly four or six) large unbroken fields ? Convenience would, of course, be served. It was simpler to have the strips which were to be tilled. in a par- ticular year gathered within one-half or two-thirds of the arable area than to have them scattered throughout its entire extent. Yet dissemination of strips was by no means abhorrent to the mediaeval peasant mind. What was really gained by keeping the arable furlongs in a compact area was convenience of another sort. It was the possibiUty of letting the cattle range without hindrance over a large part of the township. Had any furlongs within a large fallow area been subjected to cultivation while the rest of the area was utihzed for fallow pasture, it would have been necessary to fence the cultivated portions. Such an incon- venience was obviated by large and simple boundaries, and the easy utiHzation of the fallow for pasture was what lay behind a system of two or three comprehensive fields. In East Anglia different pasturage provisions deflected the field boundaries, and with them the field system, from the normal type. Important as is the relation between common rights of pastvire and the two- and three-field system, the records at our disposal seldom enable us to argue from the former to the latter. Since references to common rights of pasture are infrequent even in elaborate sixteenth-century surveys, the less can they be expected in the briefer early docxmients. It is rather in the direction of disproof that certain items will be of avail. In the East AngHan evidence there are references to pasturage arrangements of a sort not realizable under a two- or three-field system. In consequence of this (and of other circumstances) it will be possible to maintain that the system was not there employed. On the other hand, whenever in the case of two- or three-field townships no informa- tion regarding pasturage rights is to be had and no contradictory indications appear, it may fairly be assumed that the sheep and cattle were each year pastured over a large compact arable field. If this characteristic of the two- and three-field system is seldom perceptible in the early documents, such is not the case with the TEE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 49 other features which have been noted above. However brief the terrier or grant, it will indicate whether arable open field tended to preponderate over enclosures; it will show how evenly the arable was divided between two or three fields; very likely it will be the description of a copyhold; it may by good chance refer to a vir- gate, a bovate, or a fraction thereof. If our source of information be an extent rather than a terrier, it may, if it relates to a two- or three-field township, either apportion the demesne acres between two or three fields, or it may state that every second or third year one-half or one-third of the demesne was fallow and had no value because it lay in common. Such are the criteria to be ap- pUed in sifting the evidence now to be considered. CHAPTER II The Earlier History of the Two- and Three-Field System Relying upon the characteristics of the two- and three-field system deduced from the comprehensive evidence of the six- teenth-century surveys, we ijiay now turn to the more fragmen- tary and, for the most part, earlier testimony touching the system in question. It has been collected and arranged by counties in Appendix II. Much of it is in the nature of terriers of single holdings found in rentals or deeds of conveyance, but only such evidence as satisfies the criteria indicated in the last chapter has been admitted. In particular, reasonably equal dis- tribution of arable acres between two or three fields has been insisted upon. Descriptions of freeholds and leaseholds have been utilized when they give unmistakable information about field systems and when copyholds have not been available. Items relative to small holdings have not been excluded if the acres in question lay equally divided between fields which bore the usual names. Lastly, the statements of the extents concerning fallow and commonable demesne have been appended whenever they appear pertinent. This collection of early evidence ought, it would seem, to enable us to answer certain questions regarding the two- and three-field system. At what time did it first appear in England ? Throughout what territory did it prevail ? Were two-field or three-field townships the earUer ? Were the former sometimes transformed into the latter ? And what were the respective areas appropriated by each group ? Answers to these questions can be secured from Appendix II, although they may not always be so precise as might be desired. Most unsatisfactory is the testimony regarding the first ques- tion — that which asks about origins. The difficulty, as is usual with such queries, arises from paucity of evidence. From the end of the twelfth century, when the feet of fines begin and when 50 EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 5 I grants of land first become specific and descriptive, we have acceptable information; but between the Conquest and the reign of Richard I the charters disdain field detail. So, too, for the most part do those of the Anglo-Saxon period. Since it is very desirable, however, to have some conception about field arrangements at this time, fragmentary evidence may well be attended to. The testimony of the charters and laws of Anglo-Saxon England relative to open arable fields has been noticed by Nasse and Seebohm.^ These writers point out that certain suggestive phrases and a few definite statements establish the existence of common arable fields in England long before the Conquest; but neither writer adduces any evidence which shows that the system employed was a two- or three-field one.^ Since the charters are more remvmerative in information than the laws, we may turn first to them. Such pertinent matter as they contain is usually found in the boimdaries of the land which they convey. These boundaries, which foUow the Latin body of the charter, are nearly always in Anglo-Saxon. Often they are later than the charter itself, but by how much it is seldom possible to determine. Except for a few brief early ones, they date from the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries. Since for the most part they bound large parcels of land — the five, ten, or twenty hides conveyed — they often coincide with the bound- aries of a township. Usually, too, they refer to striking features of the landscape — roads, hiUs, ditches, streams, groves, trees, barrows, and the like; and in so far as this is the case they give no information relevant to our subject. Certain grants, however, were less extensive than a township, and it might be expected that the boimdaries of these would 1 Nasse, Agricultural Community, pp. 18-26; Seebohm, English Village Com- munity, pp. 105-117. ^ Nasse (op. cit., p. 25) was inclined to see a three-field arrangement in King Eadwig's grant of twenty hides to Abingdon monastery (Kemble, Codex Diplomati- cus, 1216). The specification runs, " Dlssindon Sa^ landgemaero tSaesse burlandes to Abbendime, Saet is gadertang on J)reo genamod, Saet is Hengestes ig and Seofo- canwyriS and Wihtham." Unfortunately for Nasse's interpretation, it turns out that Hinksey and Witham are two townships just west of Oxford. 52 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS immediately reveal the existence of an open-field system. One hide subtracted from a five-hide township should, under a two- or three-field system, comprise many scattered parcels in the arable fields; ' and the bounding of such a hide should involve a reference to the existence of these scattered acres. Such refer- ences, as it happens, are seldom" found. Wherefore Nasse and Seebohm have argued that in these cases there grew up the con- vention of giving the boundaries of the entire township, just as if the latter were conveyed in toto} The convention, they ex- plain, would have arisen because the intermixture of acres made difficult any exact definition of boundary. Reversing the argu- ment, they conclude that, if part of a township is described with the boundary phrases employed elsewhere relative to the entire township, this circumstance proves that intermixed acres existed. In aU they cite six instances to establish such a usage. Thereupon they infer that the general employment in Anglo-Saxon charters of concise boundaries for relatively small transfers of land is evidence of the wide extension of open-field arable at an early date. Before this conclusion can be admitted, the six instances from which they argue that a grant of part of a township and another of the complete township employ the same boundaries deserve re- examination. One instance relates to Kingston, Berkshire.' Two charters of almost the same date describe respectively thir- teen mansae and seven cassati, the boundaries being alike. We are not, however, left to arrive at the existence of intermixed arable acres by inference; for in both charters we find the pre- amble, " Dis sind ?5a landgemaero [boundaries] to Cjoigestune aecer onder aecere." The last phrase, " aecer onder aecere," is so unusual that there might be doubt about its meaning were it not for the explanation vouchsafed in another charter. Three cassati at Hendred, Berkshire, transferred in 962, are left without boundaries; but where the metae are usually inserted we are told, " Dises landgemaera syn gemaene sua t5aet Us aefre aecer under ' Unless, as often happened at a later period, it was consolidated demesne. ' Nasse, op. cit., pp. 24, 25; Seebohm, op. cit., p. iii. " Cod. Dip., 1276, 1277 (c. 977). EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 53 aecer," " The boundaries are common in such way that the arable acres are intermixed." * This clarifies the phraseology of the Kingston charters. The preamble to them wishes to tell us that the acres were intermixed. It is equivalent to explaining why the 'scribe gave the boundaries of an entire township rather than attempt the impossible task of locating scattered acres. We may therefore agree with Nasse and Seebohm in their immediate inference that open arable fields are referred to in the Kingston charters, but we are not obliged to adopt their generalization. It appears rather that, if the boundaries of a township are used to describe a part of the township, this device is explained by a statement about intermixed acres.^ When such explana- tion is wanting, inferences as to intermixed acres may be un- warranted. Another citation of Nasse's and one of Seebohm's are not more happy. The latter is concerned with two charters which relate to Stanton, Somerset, and employ very similar boundaries. One conveys two and one-half hides, the other seven and one-half.' But the former distinctly states, " Dis synt 6a landgemaera to Stantune [the entire township]," and after the recital continues, " Donne is binnan «am tyn hydun Aelfsiges [the grantee's] fridde healfe hide." The justification for the use of the boundaries of the township in connection with a part of it is specific: the two and one-half hides lay within the ten hides. Nasse's Waltham instance is of the same sort; * for the fourteen hides which King Eadmund booked are expressly said to lie " binnan Sam pritigum hidum landgemaero " — within the thirty hides whose boundaries are given. At Waltham, as at Stanton, the. use of the boundaries of an entire township when a part of the township was to be con- veyed appeared so unusual as to need explanation. Two other groups of charters to which we are referred are not convincing. In 903, as Seebohm points out, King Edward gave to his "princeps" Ordlaf twenty cassati at Stanton, Wiltshire; in 1 Cod. Dip., 1240. ' Nasse cites the explanatory phrase of the Kingston charters, but Seebohm re- fers to it only in a note upon another point (op. cit., p. ii2j n. 3). 3 Cod. Dip., 502 (an. 963), 516 (an. 965). * Ibid., 1134 (an. 940). 54 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS. 957 King Edwig conveyed to Bishop Osulf twenty tnansae at the same place.^ There is a slight if not a very exact correspond- ence between the descriptions of the boundaries of the two grants. Assume, as Seebohm did, that the boundaries are the same. Why should each twenty mansae (or cassati) be looked upon as part of a larger township ? Why should they not refer to the same area — perhaps to a township of twenty hides? That the grantees in each charter were different need cause no difficulty. Between 903 and 957 the twenty mansae may well have reverted to the crown. The first grant was of the sort which did revert; it had just done so in 903. The boundaries to which Nasse refers at Wolverley, Worcestershire, were probably ahke for the same reason.^ In one charter the king gave two mansae to one of his ministri, in the other two mansae to the cathedral church at Wor- cester. Both grants, to be sure, occurred within the same year. It is not improbable, however, that there was a speedy reversion and regrant, while the identity of the mansae conveyed is insured by the circvunstance that the first grantee (Pulfferd) gave his name to the land. A last instance is cited by Nasse. In the middle of the tenth century eighteen mansae and twenty-two mansae were conveyed at Welford, Berkshire, with substantially the same boundaries.' No phrase explains why this is so, nor do the eighteen seem to have been a part of the twenty-two. Nasse apparently thought them constituents of a forty-hide manor, bounded similarly be- cause arable acres were intermixed. The first part of this assump- tion seems justifiable. In Domesday Book, Welford is set down as a manor " formerly " rated at fifty hides.^ What Nasse forgot is that a manor of this size was usually composite, containing within its bounds more than one township. A comparison of the Domesday map with the modern one reveals Welford as such a manor.' This being the case, the eighteen and the twenty- ' Cod. Dip., 335 {an. 903), 467 (an. 957). ' Ibid, 291, 292 (an. 866). ' Ibid, 427 {an. 949), 1198 {an. 956). * " T. R. E. se defendit pro 1 hidis et modo pro xxxvii (i. 58J)." ' Cf. Victoria History of Berkshire, i. 323. Several hamlets near Welford do not appear on the Domesday map, e. g., Easton, Wickham, Warmstall, Clapton, Shef- ford. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 55 two hides can scarcely be referred to a single township of forty hides. Since, however, the agrarian unit within which arable acres were intermixed was the township rather than the com- posite manor, these charters tell us nothing about a usage such as Nasse argues for. To be convincing, he should have pointed to a small number of hides (less than ten) bounded with the boundaries of the township within which they are supposed to have lain. Inasmuch as neither he nor Seebohm cites instances of this sort which are not self-explanatory, it does not seem safe, in cases where we cannot compare the boundaries of fractional and entire townships, to infer that the boundaries of small grants were frequently those of townships. Without this inference it is not possible to argue that the general character of Anglo- Saxon charter boundaries goes to prove the early prevalence of intermixed arable acres in England. Another aspect of the boundaries, however, better endures examination. This Seebohm pointed out,^ and this Vinogradoff has emphasized.'' They remark that in some enumerations are found words and phrases drawn from the open-field vocabulary, phrases which must naturally have occurred wherever the bound- ary of a township ran for a space along an open arable field. The appearance of these expressions in the description of metae, they argue, goes to prove the existence of arable common fields. Prominent among phrases of this kind is forierthe or heafod- aecer? It was the term applied to the long headland upon which the strips of a furlong abutted, and would scarcely have been used in a region not characterized by intermixed strips. Garae- cer, or gore acre, the small irregular triangle in the corners of furlongs, also appears.* This term was less essentially bound up with an open-field system than was "headland," being applicable to any parcel of land thus shaped; still, it was one of the phrases of the open-field vocabulary, and its use as a landmark may be significant. Relative to Mine, so often found and so strongly ' Op. cit., p. 107. ' English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 278. ' For early instances, see Cod. Dip., 437, 1080. * e. g., ibid., 1080. S6 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS insisted upon by Seebohm and Vinogradoff, there seems to be no reason for supposing that in the boundaries it meant anything more than hillside. Such has been and is its usual connotation. Seebohm explains that terraces of hillside arable strips were in the nineteenth century called " lynches "; * but the term seems seldom to have had this significance in sixteenth-century surveys or in earlier field documents.^ Its application to the terraces is probably late, and due to an extension of the original meaning. Among the phrases of the boundaries, therefore, that which most clearly refers to open fields is heafodaecer, and the first appearance of this is in the tenth century. Apart from occasional open-field words which by chance crept into the boundaries, the charters contain a few specific references to the open-field system. Nasse first cited four of them, all in tenth-century grants to Abingdon monastery, and still among our best bits of evidence.' Seebohm added one reference,^ Vino- gradoff three, ^ and Maitland four, two of them credible and two doubtful.* Ten of these citations, together with nine others, may now be given as embodying the most convincing evidence which the charters of the Anglo-Saxon period proffer regarding open-field conditions : — 1 Op. cit., p. s. * The Hertfordshire mstance cited below on (p. 377, n. 2) is unusual. ' Op. cit., pp. 22, 24. In the following list the four are nos. 1169, 1234, 1240, 1278, in Kemble's Codex. * Op. cit., p. 112, n. {Cod. Dip., 1213). ' English Society, pp. 259, 277, 279 {Cod. Dip., 793, 503; Cartl. Sax., 1130). ' Domesday Book, pp. 365-366. The credible ones are here given: Cod. Dip., 339, 586. The doubtful ones are from Kent and have not the characteristics of two- or three-field grants: ibid., 241 {an. 839), 259 {an. 845). Of the latter the first refers to " xxiiii iugeras ... in duabus locis in Dorovemia civitatis intua [intra] muros civitatis x iugera cum viculis praedictis et in aquilone praedictae civitatis xiiii iugera histis terminibus circumiacentibus. . " The boundaries which follow indicate that the fourteen acres formed a single parcel, while the ten acres seem to have been within the walls. The other Kentish charter conveys " xviiii . . . iugera hoc est vi iugera ubi nominatur et Uuihtbaldes hlawe et in australe parte pupllce strate altera vi et in australe occidentale que puplice strate ubi appellatur Uueoweraget in confinioque Deoringlondes vii iugero. . " The equal division of acres here does indeed suggest a threefold plan, but the awkward location of the three subdivisions with reference to highways rather than fields shows that the arrangement was accidental. Kent, as we shall see, was one of the English counties in which the three-field system did not come to prevail. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS S7 Date Reference' County, Village, and Description 904 339 Worcs., Beferbuman (Barbourn). " Eac hio sellatS him be befer human \>a, ludadingwic] ec }>aer to sextig aecera earSlondes be sutJan beferbuman ] oer sextig be norSan. . " 953 1169 Berks, Cusanhricge (Currage in Chieveley). Grant of V cassati. After the boundaries occurs, " And on {San gemanan lande gebyrat5 Sarto fif and sixti aeccera." 958 1213 Berks, Draitune (Drayton). Gia.nt oi x mansae. " Dis sind 8a landgemaera to Draitune, aecer under aecer." 961 1234 Berks, AeSeredingetune (Addington in Hungerford). Grant of ix mansae. " Das nigon hida licggeaS on gemang otSran gedallande feldlaes gemane and maeda gemane and yriJland gemaene." 962 1240 Berks, HenneriSe (Hendred). Grant of iii cassati. " Dises landgemaera syn gemaene sua tSaet liS aefre aecer under aecer." 963 503 Wilts, Afene (Avon). Grant of iii cassati, " singulis iugeribus mixtim in communi rure hue illucque dis- persis.'' not earlier Cartl. Wilts, pinterburnan (Winterboum). Gra.nt oi x mansae. than 964 Sax., 1145 "pis S3mdon |)ara fif hida land gemaera Into pinter- burnan be festan tune syndries landes. . . ponne syndon fa fif hida be Eastan tune gemaenes lan- des on gemaenre mearce sfa sfa hit faer to be limped." 966 531 Gloucs., Clifforda (Clifford Chambers). Three-life lease of ii mansae: " oSer healf hid gedaellandes and healf hid on Saere ege.'' 974 586 Gloucs., Cudinclea (Cuddingley). Grant of i mansa. After the boundaries occurs, " and xxx aecra on 8aem twaem feldan dallandes witSutan." c. 977 1276 Berks, Cyngestun (Kingston). Grant of xiii mansae. " Dis sind t5a landgemaero to CjTigestune aecer onder aecere." Boundaries, " on Sa heafodaeceras." 982 1278 Berks [?], Ceorlatun. Gi&nt oi v cassati. " Rus namque praetaxatum manifestis undique terminis minus divi- ditur, quia iugera altrinsecus copulata adiacent.'' 985 648 Hants, Harewillan (Harewell). Grant of xvii cassati, " segetibus mixtis." 987 658 Hants, Feamlaeh (Farleigh). Grant of iii mansae at Westwood and iii perticae at Farleigh. After the boundaries of Westwood is, " Donnae licgeatS 8a preo gyrda on o8aere haealfae fromae aet Faeamlaeagae on gaemaenimi landae." 1 The references, with the exception of two to Birch's Cartulariutn Saxonicum, are to the num- bers in Kemble's Codex Diplomalicus. In volume iii of the Cartularium there is a table showing the corresponding numbers in the two works. 58 ENGLISH FlEl.n SYSTEMS Pule Raferanco (•>.»iil,v. Vlll«nt>. »i«l KcxrlplKiiv PQO 674 Wons., Ull|>^r^lll tVlpllo'n'^- 'I'lmH?ll(o Ichko ofll A('t/il (o two l)r»)thoi-s: " nml no otiltlro Imolilu- noiTiiu, nml w iui>Kra tione l'it>iKnn, gc iimor, gc iillpi," f. 97J-OOJ Ciirll. Nortlmnls, 0\iihok>' ((Hncyt. r«is,ir!ifnn Ige sixli sliiiii laiulrs |>ot is imu'lcn l» XXX lu'iTiimi. 995 (iQj (Umus., niii"l><'ltim (l>iin>liloliml. (5riint of "iluiis niiin s«» ol ilin\l(lii>in . imnNlU'lum nis, umihI In i»in muni Ic-rrii Niluiu wl," 1003 130S (iUmis., Oumollun inumliU'loi\l. (imi\l dI xxllll wmm .vdc, •' xct vii in oiviilonliili piirlc lluintnix l''»inKl>niimn . . lie dims ii\ iirictilnli cluwlcni loriTiilis clin\iilr, sorU- i-omnuincs populuri m-l l'',iislnni', ni'inoi\ ol v [In] loiist silvHlicls. , . , " 840 JdJ, App. Woiis., C'olliin (('oflnii), lloundurv, " up I'l- ttuni nciniir- |in (uiilly X mm liindc." or xi cent.] 1050 7y,< Oxiinst., Si\ndl'(iiili\ (Snndroiill. liiiml of till niillistli'. " Dis siiwl iSii liinilgcniHorii (o Siindl'ordn on ttum Koni nnniin tnndo." What is most immediiitoly to hr di'diucil from (Iu-hc tiiiifU't'ii citations is the fuel that, wliiU- none of them arc caflicr Hum the tenth century, tlieie did exist at that time so-ialleil (oinnion land. Frequently the i>as8age.s imply nolhin^ more. Tiie sixty live acres at Curra^^e were " on Kan genuinan hvnde," ' as were Hie tliree roods ut iMirlei^h and the four iminsur at Sandiord. A boundary at C'ofton ran " up he flam nemaenan lande." 'I'he Hendred charter, as we have seen, ainplilies the term " ^emaene " enough to explain that its lands lay " aeeer under aeeer," a phrase which, along with tiie mention of " iiaefod aeeer " in Hie IxHindaries, must lead us to agree with Nasse and Seelioiim in see ing at Kingston intermixed arable acres. " Ae(er under aeeer " is also used to describe the situation at Drayton. ' Nasso, iirKUUiK for curly coiivfrdMo liiiHJjiindry UK upplloil lo (lir wiwlo, nrrn in Ihia '' a rcrlnin porlion of the common puHlnniKo . . , liikon up ami iipplird Icin- porarlly to ariiblc purpoaca " (op. ill., p. 23). Since (Ihmt In no otiici irfrrmco in Anglo-Saxon doctmionlH lo convert il>li- huHliiuidry of llilii klixl (Nimito'» ollirr ciliilion implicit, UH many i ImrlcrH do, merely proportionate rlKliU In tlio wttila), il sccma hotter to interpret the Cnrrugc pliriiwi iin doicrlptlve of live lildcit of domosno to which aixty-flvo a( tch In the conuntm iirublo I'leldH were iippnrlonunl. ICA/it.V IIISTOKV or TWO AND TIlKEIi fl/Cf.DS 59 The Addinffton account of nine hidcH is valualjlc in that it further amplifies our conception of " Kcm.Kine land." 'I'hese hides lay " on K'-nian({ oftran j^edailandc," and their " yrMand " was " K''niacn(!." Nothing could nion; fittingly descrilM; holdinj^n in open field than to Bay that th(;y lay in the midst of olh(;r divided land, wilh tli(' arables (as well as the pastures and meadows) in (onunon. (ie. 279. 6o ENGUSH FIELD SYSTEMS altrinsecus copulata adiacent." Clearest was the description at Avon, " acres scattered here and there intermixedly in the common arable field." At Upthrop we can see the acres getting intermixed. Two brothers so divided two hides there that in all places the elder had three acres, the younger the fourth. The division would scarcely have been described in this way had it looked to the creation of two compact holdings. Instead of this, we may assume that each plot of the two hides was divided and two holdings of scattered parcels created. Only two of the passages suggest what kind of field system was in use, and these Maitland has already quoted. At Cuddingley in Gloucestershire there were thirty acres of "[gejdalland " in the two fields, a pretty clear reference to a two-field system. Some- what more questionable is the other passage. Appended to the grant of a parcel of land within tlie city of Worcester were sixty acres of arable to the south of " Beferburnan " and sixty to the north. If Beferburnan (Barbourn) was then a hamlet, as it is today, the description would be not unlike many later ones which indicate the presence of two fields by the statement that a certain number of acres lay on one side of a village and tlie same number on the other side.' In the charter of 904, however, the name Barbourn may have designated merely a stream. If so, there is no particular significance in the passage, since land divided by a brook may have been consolidated. It chances that this Barbourn charter is earlier by fifty years than any other of the list. Indeed, most of our citations date from the second half of the tenth century. If, then, the Bar- bourn reference be excluded, our first reliable charter testimony touching open fields in England dates from these decades. That we have nothing earlier is perhaps due to the comparative rarity of genuine charters before 950, and to the very brief references to boundaries which the genuine ones contain. One other feature of the passages quoted is of interest. All refer to townships located within seven counties, and these are counties of the southern midlands. Berkshire, Hampshire, Wilt- ' Cf. Appendix II. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 6 1 shire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Oxfordshire, and North- amptonshire form a compact area, a part of the larger territory within which we shall soon see the two- and three-field system domiciled. The testimony of the charters is, therefore, in accord with that of more detailed but later evidence. Briefly stated, it is this: in seven counties of the southern midlands some twenty charters of the tenth and eleventh centuries testify to the existence of open common arable fields, and one or two of them probably reflect to a two-field system. Turning to the Anglo-Saxon laws, we find a single passage of first-rate importance relative to open fields, but we find little besides. The passage in question, which has been quoted by Nasse and Seebohm,^ runs as follows: — " Gif ceorlas gaerstun haebben gemaenne otiSe ofer gedalland to tynanne, 7 haebben sume getyned hiora dael, sume naebben, 7 etten hiora gemaenan aeceras otSSe gaers, gan l>a J'onne l>e tSaet geat agan, 7 gebete l>am oSrum, pe hiora dael getynedne haebben, fone aewerdlan pe t5aer gedon sie." ^ What gives this regulation a unique importance is its date. Ine's laws belong to the end of the seventh century, to the years between 688 and 694.' At this time there existed, as the extract shows, common meadow and " other gedalland " which it was the duty of the tenants to hedge. If one of them failed to do his share of the hedging, and cattle destroyed the growing grass or grain, he was responsible to his co-tenants. Such a conception of gedalland corresponds with what we have learned of it in the tenth century. The term was then applied to common inter- mixed arable acres. The gedalland of Ine's law was not pasture, since pasture would not have been divided. It was " other ' Nasse, op. cit., p. 19; Seebohm, op. cit., p. no. ' F. Liebennann, Dh Geseise der Angelsachen (3 vols., Halle, 1898-1912), i. 106. " If ceorls have common meadow or other gedalland to hedge aid some have hedged their share and some have not, [and if stray cattle] eat their common acres or grass, let those who are answerable for the opening go and give compensation to those who have hedged their share for the injury which may have been done." » Liehermann, "Ueber die Gesetze Ines von Wessex," in Milanges d'HisUrire offerls d U. Charles Bimont . . . (Paris^ 1913), p. 32. Liebennann recognizes in the above passage " ein Dorf mit Gemeinwiese und Gemenglage der Aecker " (ibid., 26). 62 . ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS than " meadow. It must have been arable. The arable acres must further have been intermixed, else the cattle, once through the hedge, could not have ranged over all of them. Common intermixed arable acres in England are therefore discernible at the end of the seventh century. The law assures us of their existence two centuries before the charters give testimony. In another respect the law agrees with the charters. Both lo- cate the early arable open field in the western and southern mid- lands. The counties to which the charters refer were (with the possible exception of Northamptonshire) of West Saxon origin.^ That the laws of Ine were appHcable to the same territory at the end of the ninth century is shown by Alfred's recension of them. Wessex and the southern edge of Mercia were thus the regions within which we see arable open field pretty clearly at the end of the seventh century and quite unmistakably in the tenth. Apart from their impUcations regarding the existence of com- mon arable fields, our earhest sources tell us Uttle. No reference to a three-field township is vouchsafed, and only twice (in the tenth century) is there probable reference to a two-field township. But meagre as is the contribution of Anglo-Saxon documents to our knowledge of field systems, that of the first Norman century is not more ample, and we may pass at once to the times of Richard and John. Only with the definite evidence of the late twelfth and of the thirteenth century do we first come upon townships whose arable fields were clearly two or three. Since both sorts were then reasonably numerous, it is at length possible to ascertain the area throughout which the two- and three-field system prevailed in mediaeval England. Later testimony fills in doubtful stretches of the boundary, until by the sixteenth century the circuit can be pretty well determined. From the available data which have been collected in Appendix II its reconstruction may now be attempted.* In the north the county of Northumberland must for the time be excluded. The three fields which some documents seem to 1 Chadwick, Origin 0} the English Nation, pp. 3, 5, map facing p. 11. ^ The result is shown on the map facing the title-page. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 63 disclose there manifest certain questionable features, and will best be discussed in a later chapter which treats of the field system of the Border.^ In Durham we are on secure ground, although the evidence is relatively late. The survey of Ingleton, which has already been quoted to illustrate the three-field system,^ is one of a series, several members of which are similar to it. All the townships thus described lie in the southern part of the county in the flat region which stretches from Durham to the Tees. The episcopal city thus becomes the northern outpost of the three- field system. In Yorkshire, the East Riding and much of the North Riding furnish evidence of the existence of two- or three-field townships. The West Riding is more chary in this respect, for in the moun- tainous western part the system cannot be discerned. Keeping to the east, the boundary of two- and three-field tillage follows the coast until, on reaching Boston, it turns inland to exclude the fen country. Parts of the counties of Lincoln, North- ampton, Huntingdon, and Cambridge (the Isle of Ely) now fall outside of it, though by far the larger part of each county re- mains within it. From southeastern Cambridgeshire the line turns sharply to the southwest, follows the hills which separate Hertfordshire from Bedfordshire, passes on along the ridges of the Chilterns through southern Buckinghamshire and Oxford- shire, crosses Berkshire east of Reading, keeps near the eastern boundary of Hampshire, until, on reaching the South Downs, it follows them eastward into Sussex as they stretch on to lose themselves in the Channel at Beachy Head. All the south- eastern counties from Norfolk to Surrey, together with a large part of Sussex, are thus excluded. The western boundary of the two- and three-field area begins in western Dorsetshire, passes north across Somerset including two-thirds of that county, crosses by the forest of Dean into Herefordshire, embraces most of this county and its neighbor Shropshire, passes northeast through Staffordshire and Derby- shire into Yorkshire, where it cuts off the western edge of the county as it continues to Durham. Three areas are excluded ' Cf. below, pp. 210 sq. ' Cf. p. 36, above. 64 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS on the west and north: Cornwall, Devon, and western Somerset; Wales with Monmouthshire; and the counties of the northwest, Cheshire, Lancashire, western Yorkshire, Westmorland, Cum- berland, and possibly Northumberland. Within the boundaries thus drawn lay at least half the soil of England, and the coun- ties comprised are for the most part known as the northern and southern midlands. For brevity, therefore, and because it is not altogether inappropriate, the term midland system will often be employed henceforth in referring to two- and three-field arrangements. There is one stretch of the boundary just indicated which is not borne out by the citations of Appendix II. This is the link which embraces the counties of Hereford and Shropshire. The early evidence in support of the existence of a three-field system in these counties is relatively so meagre that it seems best to set it forth separately and in detail. It will be remembered that testimony has already been adduced from Jacobean surveys to show the presence of three-field townships in the two counties. Especially at Stockton and its hamlets in northern Herefordshire have three fields been discerned, and the Shropshire hamlets bordering upon Claverley Holme and Warfield Holme appear also to have had rather consistently three arable fields. But little further sixteenth-century evidence is available, and, as we shall see, there were many irregularities in Herefordshire fields at that time.' Still later, too, only three or four of all the Herefordshire enclosure awards bespeak three fields.* For these reasons early evidence is the more to be desired. The system, if existent, soon began to decline and can have been intact only in its youthful days. What, then, say the early charters and extents ? The Herefordshire evidence is more slight than that from the neighboring county. We have no difficulty in discovering that a three-course rotation of crops was later in favor on demesne lands, but the demesne in question probably did not lie in open field.' An extent of Luston, a manor of Leominster priory, how- ' C£. pp. 93 sq., below. 2 Cf. pp. 142-143, below. ' The surveyors of the lands of the home manor of the abbey of Dore explain: " And wher also some parte of the arable lands of the sayd demeain ... is not EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 65 ever, states that in i Edward III 150 of the demesne acres lay in TuffenhuU field, 140 in BreshuU field, and 125 in Wondersback field, a description which seems indicative of a three-field town- ship.i A similar situation may be perceived in a charter of 1273 which transfers the " quartam partem unius virgate terre de Luda que iacet inter agros de Mortuna." ^ This quarter-virgate, of Lyde, which lay within the fields of the neighboring hamlet of Morton, had its acres equally divided among three fields: — " viii acre sunt in cultura que dicitur parve spire ager [the following re-grant adding] quarum v sunt ultra Waribroc, tres vero citra in cultura que dicitur Preostecroft et vii acre sunt in cultura que dicitur West field et vii acre sunt in cultura que dicitur Sudfeld quarum iii sunt sub DodenhuUe et iii apud pontem de Ludebroc. " lyck good as the more parte therof is and for that the same arable lands, by all marks as the[y] severally lye, every thyrd year lye fallow, we in consyderatyn therof have valued all the same arable lands togethers in grose al on' hole com- munibus annis. . . . There be in severall fylds of the sayd demeains of arable lands ccccxx acres valued communibus annis at iiii li " (Rents, and Survs., Ro. 225, 32 Hen. VIII). ' John Price, An Historical and Topographical Account of Leominster and its Vicinity (Ludlow, 1795), pp. 151 sq. In the priory's other townships two- or three- field arrangements are not suggested. At Hope the demesne consisted of 150 acres in Hhenhope and 120 in Brounesfield, improbable names for township fields. At Stockton, in the parish of Kimbolton, the fields were three (or five), but the division of acres among them was unequal. In Whitebroc field were 125 acres, in the field of Conemers and in Alvedon 192, in the field of Redweye and in Stalling 208. Ivington seems at first glance to have had three fields, since the demesne arable comprised 144 acres in West field, 132 in the " field against the Par," and 146 acres in Merrell. It chances, however, that the fields of Ivington are again met with in a fifteenth-century Leominster cartulary, where transfers of six acres and four acres give specific locations (Cott. MS., Domit. A III, ff. 231, 2316). Of the six acres, two lay " in campo qui vocatm: le merele," two " iuxta parcum de Ivynton," and two " in campo de Brereley qui dicitur Westefeld " in two parcels. Of the four, two were " in campo qui vocatur le Wortheyn " and two " in campo qui vocatur le Stockyng." The fields of the first grant are those in which, according to the earlier document, the demesne was situated. Hence it is disconcerting to learn that West field is a field of Brierley, an adjacent hamlet. When further we find two new fields appearing in the second grant, the three-field character of Ivington, suggested at first, becomes problematical. 2 W. W. Capes, Charters and Records 0/ Hereford Cathedral (Hereford, 1908), P- 23- 66 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Although this description gains in value because the division of a fractional virgate is in question, it must be admitted that two instances would constitute slight proof of the early existence of a three-field system in the county, did they stand alone. From near-by Shropshire, however, more satisfactory early data are available. There can, of course, be no doubt about the existence of common fields in this coimty. Later descriptions of monastic properties drawn up in 31 Henry VIII continually locate the arable acres " in communibus campis." ^ Occasionally they give more specific information and mention three fields. At Norton in the parish of Wroxeter there were held at the will of the lord two messuages, two crofts, and " in quoHbet campo com- muni trium camporum ibidem . . . ten dayeserth." ^ Just over the county border in the parish of Gnosall, Staffordshire, Lilies- hall monastery had a messuage, a croft, and arable land " in tribus campis communibus ibidem." ' A copyhold of the monas- tery of Much Wenlock comprised " XX acras terra arabiUs iacentes in campo ibidem vocato West- wodfeld xviii acras ibidem in Alden hill feld versus Estp' xxii acras in campo vocato overfeld. " * In general, however, these monastic properties are described with brevity, and we turn to earlier documents. In 5 Edward III a three-course rotation of crops was employed upon the demesne lands at Ernewood and Hughley, one-third of the acres being sown with wheat.* But this proves little. More instructive is the fact that in the fourteenth century the demesne lands of the manors of three of the largest abbeys in the county, Shrews- bury, Lilleshall, and Much Wenlock, were so tilled that one-third of the arable each year lay both fallow and in common.* Although such tillage is not conclusive proof that the demesne was distrib- uted among three open common arable fields, it does, we have » Land Rev., M. B. 184, ff.4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 184/, 190/, 210, 228J, 234, 236, etc. « Ibid., f. 18. ' Ibid., f. 156. * Ibid., f. 134 J. ' Exch. Anc. Extents, no. 68. * " Tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam at in communi" (Add. MS. 616s, ff. 37, 43. si)- EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 67 seen, make this probable.^ With regard to the demesne arable of another manor little doubt about the apportionment remains. At Faintree, in 2 Edward I, the jurors say that " in uno campo sunt xxxiiii acre terre arabihs et in aHo campo xxx acre et in tertio campo xxvi." ^ Thus in one way or another we get gHmpses of considerable tripartite division of the demesne in fourteenth- century Shropshire.' Always more relevant to the study of field systems than the items about the demesne is information about tenants' holdings. Fortunately there are four or five descriptions of early Shropshire virgates or parts thereof. One is contained in an account of the land at Poynton from which Shrewsbury abbey in 13 Henry IV claimed tithes.* Most of it was demesne, which lay in furlongs or " bruches " pretty equally divided between Tuns tall field, Middle field, and MuUe field. But there is this further speci- fication: — " Item de uno mesuagio et medietate unius virgate terre quam Willielmus Bird tenet omnes decimas in le MuUefeild Item de medietate unius virgate terre quam idem Willielmus tenet, viz. de Marlebrook furloiige . . . tertiam garbam Item de tota terra dicte medietatis virgate terre quam idem Willielmus tenet iacenti in le Middlefeild omnes decimas . . . ^ Cf . p. 46, above. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. I, F. 4 (14). ' It could not always be found in the sixteenth century, however. An extent of the demesne of the home manor of the monastery of Wenlock, made when the property was taken over by the crown, runs as follows (Land Rev., M. B. 184, f. 61): — " [159 acres in eleven closes.] The nombre of acres lyeing in the comyn fyld First the West Fyld callyd eadege fyld of arable gronde count' 105 acres valewyd at 4 d. the acre Item the South fyld count' 95 acres valewyd at 4 d. the acre Item a leysowe by the myle pole sown with wheat cont' 10 acres [at 6 d. the acre] Item the further Standhyll lyeing in the comyn feld northward count' 16 acres [at I d.] Item the shorte Walmore dyked and quycksett about cont' 7 acres [at 10 d.] Item the pole Dame dyked and quycksett about cont' xii acres [at 10 d.] Item the cawscroft byndyng upon the myU cont' iii acres [at 12 d.]. " * Add. MS. 30311, f. 241. 68 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Item de medietate unius virgate terre quam idem Willielmus tenet in Tonstallfield et de quodam furlongo in Horsecroft Et de una landa terre vocata Longelane in Horsecroft tertiam garbam. ..." This description is iiot entirely lucid. It seems, however, to refer to a single half -virgate, since " dicte medietatis " joins the lands in Middle field with those in Mulle field. If so, the half-virgate lay in the same three fields as the demesne lands from which tithes were due, with apparently something in addition in Marie- brook furlong. Such duplication of three fields in the two descriptions goes far to stamp the township as one in which a three-field system prevailed. The Shropshire feet of fines occasionally transfer virgates or parts of them. At Darhston the third part of a virgate and four acres were described as " vi acras versus Hethe, vi acras versus Pres, vi acras versus Sanford, et vi acras de essarto sub North- wude." ' This enumeration wears thfe aspect of four fields rather than three. Yet it is noteworthy that the three names used to indicate directions are those of townships near by, and this makes it probable that the first three groups of acres may have been situated one in each of three open arable fields. Inasmuch as the fourth group of six acres formed part of an assart, it perhaps represents an early addition to the three original fields. Less irregular was the fourth part of a virgate at Romsley. It com- prised " in campo qui vocatur Sands tiele vi acras et in campo qui vocatur Eastfeld viii acras . . . et in campo qui vocatur Coldray viii acras et mesuagium quod fuit Roberti Clerenbald." * This is the normal virgate terrier of a three-field township, with nothing unusual except perhaps the names of the fields. In neither of these western counties, however, were the field names so direct and simple as in the midlands. They were particularly awkward at The Last. Here a half-virgate disposed its acres so that there were " undecim in campo versus gravam de Lastes, septem in campo versus crucem de Lastes, et novem in campo versus Che tone." ^ Such a relatively equal division of acres 1 Ped. Fin., 193-2-10, i John. ' Ibid., 193-3-79, 21 Hen. III. ^ Ibid., 193-2-38, I John. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 69 seems to domicile the three-field system in the northeastern part of the county. If so, this is an outpost toward Cheshire beyond which the system did not much advance. From the southeast of the county we have another important terrier, describing the sixteen acres which were part of a half-virgate at Presthope as " vii acras terre in Arildewelle, v acras terre in Chesterfordfeld, iv acras terre in Hinesmere." ' The names are scarcely simple, but the division of virgate acres is after the three-field pattern. Finally, the virgate which accompanied a messuage and curti- lage in a grant at Shawbury near Shrewsbury comprised " Sexdecim acras terre campestris in quolibet campo, viz., in campo versus Foret super Crokes forlonge vii acras terre et inter terram de Cherletone . . . et Cressewalbroke ix acras cum particuUs ad capita seilonum Et in campo versus Hadenhale vi acras similiter iacentes in Stodefolde et quatuor acras terre extendentes inter altam viam et le Middelheth et iii acras super le Middelheth et duas acras terre super Sicheforlonge Et in campo versus parvam Withiford iiii acras terre . . . et unam acram terre iuxta Ingriythemedewe et iii acras terre super Molkebur' cum una forera ad capud dictarum acrarum et tres acras terre abuttantes super viam prope gardinum demini et tres acras terre abuttantes usque ad portam . . . cum forera ad capud dictarum terrarum. . . . " ^ There could be no more straightforward declaration of a three- field system than this terrier. Only in what has already mani- fested itself as a Shropshire peculiarity, the predilection for nam- ing fields with reference to adjoining townships, is there any variation from the norm. These illustrations must suffice. They are the best available in proof of an early extension of the midland system toward the Welsh border. ' Ped. Fin., 193-3-16, 6 Hen. III. 2 Add. MS. 333S4, f. 81. Earlier than 1254. 70 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS With this assurance that the boundary of the two- and three- field system bent westward to include Herefordshire and Shrop- shire, we may at length return to the entire area comprised within that boimdary and attempt to make a discrimination. How much of this extensive territory was, during the Middle Ages, claimed by two-field and how much by three-field husbandry ? Hitherto these methods of tillage have been treated as one. A glance at Appendix II, in which an effort has been made to col- lect early rather than late instances of the occurrence of both, will show that the list of two-field townships is not short. It is, indeed, probably longer than the three-field list, but the number of citations imports little when the finding of them is so hazard- ous. What signifies is the area over which each method of tillage was extended. As it happens, neither system always dominated large and compact stretches of territory; nearly every county within the boundary above drawn had both two- and three-field townships. Nevertheless, there were preponderances. The southwestern counties were very largely devoted to two-field tillage. Most of eastern Somerset, all the Cotswold area which stretches through Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, and Gloucester- shire, all the down lands of Berkshire, Wiltshire, and Dorset, were in the thirteenth century in two fields. Even Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, and Bedfordshire may have been at least haK given over to this simpler agriculture, while such was certainly the case with Northamptonshire. Lincolnshire, apart from the fen country, was a two-field county. , A slightly smaller area was characterized by the three-field system at an early time. One finds it prevalent in northeastern Hampshire, in Cambridgeshire, in Huntingdonshire, and especi- ally in the valleys of the Trent and the Yorkshire Ouse. Here it prospered, till its domain came to be the eastern midlands, the north, and the west. In northern Northamptonshire, in Leicester- shire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Durham, in Staffordshire, Herefordshire, and Shropshire, it was easily supreme. Broadly speaking, the line of WatHng Street forms an approximate bound- ary between the two large areas characterized respectively by the preponderance of two and three fields. Yet we must hasten to EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS J I make restrictions. The considerable expanse of Lincolnshire in the north remained alien to the three-field system; similarly, in the west, Herefordshire, Shropshire, and Staffordshire showed no two-field affiliations. The subtractions from both areas nearly balance each other and leave the midlands divided into two not unequal parts. A patent conclusion to be drawn from this locaKzation of two- and three-field methods of tillage is that they were not expres- sions of racial or tribal predilection. Any attempt to discern in them usages peculiar to Saxons, Angles, or Danes meets at once with grave difficulties. The three-field system preponderated to the northeast of Watling Street. Yet if one should surmise that this is attributable to tribal habits of Angles or Danes, he would at once be reminded that many Lincolnshire townships (with names ending in by) had two fields as clear-cut as any situated on the Wessex downs. If, on the other hand, it be suggested that two-field usages were native to the Saxons, the early three- field townships of Hampshire and the three-field character of the Sussex coastal plain are sufficient refutation. In reality, what determined the adoption of the one or the other form of tillage was agricultural convenience, and this in turn depended largely upon the locality and the nature of the soil. For it must be remembered that between these two modes of husbandry the difference was not one of principle but one of pro- portion. Under two-field arrangements there was left fallow each year one-half of the arable, under three-field arrangements one- third. The cultivated portion, whether one-half or two-thirds, was sown in the same manner; it was divided between winter and spring grains. Walter of Henley, writing in the thirteenth century, makes this clear: " If your lands are divided in three, one part for winter seed, the other part for spring seed, and the third part fallow, then is a ploughland nine score acres. And if your lands are divided in two, as in many places, the one haK sown with winter seed and spring seed, the other half fallow, then shall a ploughland be eight score acres."^ The distinction between ■ Walter of Henley's Husbandry, together with an Anonymous Husbandry, etc. (ed. E. Lamond, 1890), p. 7. 72 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS two-field and three-field modes of tillage reduces, in short, to the utilization of an additional one-sixth of the arable each year. The resort to fallowing, the equitable apportionment of strips to fields, the pasturage arrangements — all the essential features of the system — remained unchanged. A divergence so slight is scarcely one which would evince tribal or racial peculiarities. It would indicate, rather, differing agricultural opportunities as interpreted by men whose fundamental ideas about agriculture were the same. This consideration leads to the inquiry whether the simpler two-field tillage gave place, as civilization advanced, to the somewhat more elaborate three-field one. As there was little difference in size between the areas within which two-field and three-field husbandry prevailed in the thir- teenth century, so the extant evidence does not clearly indicate priority of one over the other in point of time. Of the situa- tion before the feet of fines begin at the end of the twelfth cen- tury we know little. Although one or two Anglo-Saxon charters seem to refer to two fields, they constitute no ground for a general- ization. Certain inferences, however, are possible in this con- nection. If we admit that a two-field arrangement was simpler than a three-field one, and discover that at a later time town- ships sometimes exchanged the former for the latter, we shall not be unready to believe that the three fields which were existent by 1 200 may themselves have been the outcome of a similar trans- formation. Were this the case, the original system of the Enghsh midlands should be looked upon as one of two common arable fields. For this reason the occurrence of the transformation at a later time becomes a point of importance. Two- and three-field arrangements did not, as we have just seen, correspond with tribal usages, but simply with agricultural opportunity. Hence a change from one to the other was a matter of opportunism. As demands upon the soil increased, and as it was observed that the three-field system brought vmder tillage one-sixth more of the arable each year than did the two- field system, the question must have arisen whether it would pay to change a township's arable fields from two to three. It might, of course, have been argued that in the long nm a two-field EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 73 arrangement was as remunerative as a three-field one. Though more of the soil was left fallow each year, did not the arable repay its cultivators better for the more frequent periods of rest ? Were not the crops grown on land fallowed every other year better than those produced by land fallowed only once in three years ? Such reasoning may at times have got empirical support from the marked prosperity of certain two-field townships. But the gen- eral practice told against it. The regions which adhered to two- field husbandry were, on the whole, the bleak, chalky, unfertile uplands; those, on the contrary, which were possessed of better soil and better location came to be characterized by three fields. This can only mean that, wherever natural advantages permitted, men chose the three-field system by preference. The retention of two fields was usually a tacit recognition that nature had favored the township little. To change from two-field to three-field husbandry was there- fore tantamount to making greater demands upon the arable — to taking a step forward in agricultural progress. Some desire for improvement was, of course, bound to come in time; but in a great number of two-field townships it delayed long, becoming operative only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Sur- veys, maps, and enclosure awards instruct us as to the character of these late changes, and their teaching is summarized, so far as certain typical regions are concerned, in the two following chap- ters. In these are described certain townships, particularly in Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire, which during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries abandoned the two-field system. What they adopted was not a three-field arrangement, but one of four fields or quarters, the outcome of a subdivision of the old fields." Before the sixteenth century, however, there is no example, within the midland area, of just this method of improvement. If changes took place, the recasting seems to have resulted in three fields. Evidence of such procedure is, therefore, what must be sought, but unfortunately it is the very kind of evidence which, in the nature of the case, must needs be scanty. To chance upon an early and a later reference to the same town- ' Cf. pp. 88, I2S sg- 74 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS ship, one implying the existence of two fields and the other of three, is a rare piece of fortune when single references to field systems are so few. Under these circumstances the following instances seem worthy of consideration. That township fields were sometimes recast in a manner which involved much surveying and labor is evident from the case of two Northumberland manors. In the middle of the sixteenth century both considered proposals to re-allot parcels in the open fields with a view to the greater convenience of the tenants. One rejected the suggestion because of the difficulties involved; the other imdertook the change and we have record of the new arrangement.' The instance is relatively late and the system evolved was probably not one of three fields; yet the readiness to undertake a readjustment more difficult than a simple sub- division of two existing fields is noteworthy. A memorandum of the late fourteenth century from Corsham, Wiltshire, while it does not portray the transformation of two open fields into three, is yet instructive in showing the advent of three-course tillage in a two-field township.^ It relates to the sowing of 103 acres of demesne arable, of which 47 were in a close and worth 6 d. the acre, while 56 were in two open fields and worth 2 d. the acre. The open-field acres are described as follows: — " Sunt etiam in le Southefeld de domiiucis xv acre terre semi- nate cum frumento hoc anno in diversis particulis Item ibidem xi acre terre deputate pro ordo seminature hoc anno unde seminantur ii acre Item in le Northefeld xxx acre terre et dimidia que iacent ad warectandum hoc anno in diversis particulis." This is simple two-field tillage. With the close the case is different: — " Est ibidem in dominicis in quodam clauso separabili xiii acre seminate cmn frumento hoc anno item ibidem in eodem clauso x acre seminate cum drageto ' History of Northumberland (lo vols., Newcastle, etc., 1893-1914), ii. 418, 368. Cf. below, pp. 207-209. ' Rents, and Survs., Portf. 16/55. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 75 et ibidem x acre que iacent pro warecto hoc anno item in eodem clause in Netherforlong' xiiii acre unde una medietas seminata cum drageto et alia medietas iacet in warecto." Here the 14 acres in Netherfurlong were tilled as were the common fields, but the greater part of the close had adopted a three- SketcL of the Enclosure Map of the . Township of Stow, Lincolnshire. 1804. Map IV course rotation. One can see that such an example might some day inspire the tenants to make a similar disposition of the open fields. That at some time a change from two to three fields had taken place in certain townships is suggested by the enclosure maps of the eighteenth century. Now and then three fields are of such a character that two of them seem to have been derived from a single older one. The accompanying plan of Stow, Lincolnshire, is illustrative.' If one compares it with the plan of two-field Croxton,^ one cannot help suspecting that Stow too had once only two fields. Opposite to West field there had been an East > C. P. Recov. Ro., 49 Geo. Ill, Hil. « Cf. above, p. 26. 76 . ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS field, now replaced by Normanby field and Skelton field. We may even conjecture how the shifting of areas had been achieved. West field had been reduced in extent by the enclosure of a part of it and by the setting off of a part for Normanby field; the former East field had in turn been so enlarged by additions from the common that each of the new divisions became approximately equal in area to the shrunken West field. Much the same transformation can be traced in a plan of Pad- bury, Buckinghamshire, made in 1591. Here the old fields still retained their original names, East and West; but to the north of East field, between it and the woodland, had appeared a new common arable area called Hedge field. There is no reason to think that the old fields had been reduced in size. Improve- ment of the waste rather than subtraction from them seems to have been the creative factor in the change, for the names of the new furlongs, which are recorded, often suggest portions of a common.' Although these illustrations do not take us out of the realm of conjecture, several others serve to do so by making it entirely clear that townships once having two fields came to have three. Sometimes the interval between the dates of the docimients which picture the two stages of agricultural development is a long one. At Twyford, Leicestershire, a grant to the abbey of Burton Lazars, copied into a fifteenth-century cartulary, relates to two seHons in the West field and one rood in the East field. The en- closure award of 1796, however, describes the fields of Twyford as three. Nether, Spinney, and Mill.^ Similarly the enclosure award for Piddington, Oxfordshire, dated 1758, has reference to three fields, the Wheat field, the Bean field, and the Fallow field; ' but a charter of 6-7 Henry I conveys to St. Mary of Missenden inter alia the tithes from two acres of demesne meadow there, viz., from two acres in Westmead when the West field was sown and from two in Langdale when the East field was sown.* At ' C£. on the accompanying map the furlongs called Pitthill, Swatthill, Shennore, Cockmore hill, and Foxholes. * Cf. below, Appendix II, pp. 471, 473. ' The award is at the Shire Hall, Oxford. * Appendix II, p. 488. > 78 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Piddington, as at Twyford, two township fields had at some time between the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries been replaced by three. Elsewhere it is possible to discover that the transformation took place before the sixteenth century. At Litlington, Cam- bridgeshire, in 1 1 Edward III, only one-half of the demesne lands were sown annually, the remainder being of no value since they lay in common. By the time of Henry VIII, however, the demesne arable, so far as it lay in the common fields, comprised 41 acres in Westwoode field, 31 in Grenedon field, and 35 in Hyn- don field.^ In three Northamptonshire townships the period of change is likewise restricted to the interval between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. At Holdenby a thirteenth-century charter emunerates 36 acres of demesne arable in small parcels, assigning them in equal measure to the East field and the West field. In 32 Henry VIII another account of the demesne there refers it to West field. Wood field, and Cargatt field.^ At Dray- ton a charter of the time of Henry III divides 4I acres equally between North field and South field, allotting to each five parcels. A survey of 13 Elizabeth, on the other hand, subdivides all hold- ings with proximate equality among West field. North field, and East field, the respective areas of which were 529, 573, and 414 acres.' At Evenley, finally, several thirteenth-century charters convey arable in equal amoimts in East field and West field; but a terrier of Henry VIII enumerates in many parcels 47 acres, of which 17 lay in West field, 13 in South field, and 17 in East field.* While these four groups of documents pretty clearly assign the change from two-field to three-field arrangements to an undefined period between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, other charters and terriers reveal it accomplished or in process of accomplishment before the fifteenth century. At Long Lawford; Warwickshire, the open fields of the early thirteenth century were two; but a charter copied into a late fourteenth-century cartulary pictures them as three, and divides the numerous parcels of 49 > Appendix II, pp. 457, 459. ' Ibid., pp. 477, 482. 2 Ibid., pp. 479, 482. * Ibid., pp. 478, 482. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 79 acres among the three with rough equahty.* By i Henry IV a new third field seems to be making its appearance in an interest- ing terrier of the lands which the prior of Bicester had in the open fields of his home manor, Market End. According to the enclosure map of 1758 these fields numbered three.^ In the terrier in question they were also three, but, so far as the prior's lands were concerned, of unequal importance. His acres in the North field ntunbered 153, in the East field 113, and " in alio campo vocato Langefordfeld " 60.' To all appearances an old South field was separating into two parts, with as yet no equi- table adjustment of areas. If no p'ositive record survives to assure us that the Bicester fields were once two, no such deficiency attaches to the evidence from KisKngbury, Northamptonshire. Here the fields were East and West, according to what is probably a thirteenth-century charter copied into a fourteenth-century cartulary; but a terrier of 14 Edward III refers to ten acres, of which 1 1 lay in the West field, 3I in the East field, and 4! in the South field.* As at Bicester, the small apportionment of acres to one of the three fields hints at a recent origin. The same situation is perceptible at Houghton Regis, Bedfordshire. A Dunstable cartulary written in a hand of the time of Edward I records the transfer of a half-virgate, eight of whose acres were in an unnamed field and eight in North field. In the same cartu- lary is entered another grant which refers its acres to North field. West field, and South field.^ Since the last area receives only one half-acre parcel in contrast with the greater amounts assigned to the other fields (if, 2I acres), here too a new field seems to be making its appearance. The tendency of two-field townships to change into three-field ones during the late thirteenth or the early fourteenth century is ' Appendix II, p. 500. ' They were called Home, Middle, and Further. The award is at the Shire Hall, Oxford. ' White Kennett, Parochial Antiquilies attempted in the History of Ambrosden, Burcester, and other adjacent parts in the Counties of Oxford and Bucks (new ed., 2 vols., Oxford, 1818), ii. 185-199. It is not certain that Kennett has trans- cribed from his original all the furlongs in the East field. His transcript breaks off abruptly and does not record the total here, as it does elsewhere. * Cf. below, Appendix II, pp. 479, 483. ' Ibid., pp. 450, 451. 8o ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS perhaps most unlnistakably seen in two other groups of charters. At Stewkley, Buckinghamshire, in 7 Richard I, 80 acres of arable demesne in many furlongs lay in campo de Suhelt, and 80 more in campo del Est. In a charter copied into an early fourteenth- century cartulary, however, 185 acres of arable at the same place are described as consisting of 6 in the northern part of the field, 6 in the eastern part, and 6 in the southern part.^ The precision of the first division is paralleled by that of the second, and is expKcable only by assuming a change from two-field to three-field arrangements. At Culworth, Northamptonshire, it seems pos- sible to fix still more definitely the date of a similar change. A long charter of 24 Edward I enumerates 62 acres in many parcels divided between North field and South field. Another grant of 7 Edward III is brief, but none the less apportions to North field one acre, to South field three roods, and to West field one rood.^ It was apparently during the reign of Edward II that West field first made its appearance. Finally, we have express statements that three fields were sub- stituted for two. The first relates to South Stoke, Oxfordshire, where in 1366, as an extent notes, two of the three fields were sown annually and the third lay fallow.' Somewhat more than a century before this, however, the fields had niunbered but two. A plea roll of 25 Henry III records, in a jurors' report relative to a complaint about pasture rights, that " predictus Abbas [John of Eynsham, predecessor of Abbot Nicholas, the defendant] parti- tus fuit terras suas in tres partes, que antea partite fuerunt in duas partes. " * The only doubt attaching to this account is the possibility that the lands referred to may have been demesne. Free from any such imcertainty is the record of what happened at Piddletown, Dorset. The township was once in two fields, as we learn from a charter copied into a cartulary of Christchurch priory.^ In 20 Edward I, however, as the same cartulary narrates, the priory's lands were formally re-divided into three parts.' The nature of the field names, the statement that ' Appendix II, pp. 455, 456. * Ibid., pp. 477, 482. ' Ibid., p. 490. * Assize Ro. 6g6, ra. 14a; cited in Victoria History of Oxfordshire, ii. 171. ' Appendix II, p. 462. • Cott. MS., Tib. D VI, £. 200. " Divisio terre domini Prions et conventus EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 8 1 the " campus " is divided, the size of the fields, and the fact that not only the bailiffs but also the " other men of the prior and convent " took part in the re-division, make it highly probable that the arable fields of the entire township were recast. The cumulative effect of all this evidence is to establish the fact that transferences from two- to three-field arrangements in midland townships did take place. Instances have been cited from an area extending from Leicestershire to Dorset and from War- wickshire to Cambridgeshire. The period, too, during which the changes seem most often to have occurred has been determined. It comprises the thirteenth century and the early fourteenth. Of the instances which can be approximately dated, that referring to South Stoke and belonging to the first half of the thirteenth century is the earliest, while the others fall between 1250 and 1350. It is precisely during this most prosperous century of the Middle Ages that one would expect agricultural progress. In midland England, it is quite probable new demands were then made upon the soil leading to numerous changes like those de- scribed above. We thus approach a final question. Since a transformation from two to three fields is discernible in the records that have survived, may not a similar change once have taken place in all townships which, when we know them, lay in three fields ? The hypothesis is entirely credible. It is especially so since there were in the thirteenth century no large unbroken three-field areas which would point to an ancient history for that system. Three- field tillage did, of course, come to preponderate in the northern and eastern midlands; but very few counties of that region were Christi ecclesie de Twynham facta in manerio de Pudelton' per Johannem le Mar- chaunt et philipum de la Berne tunc ballivos dicti manerii et alios dictorum prions at conventus fideles anno regni regis Edwardi filii Regis Henrici vicesimo et limita- tur campus in tres partes, videlicet. Primus limes extendit se in regia via de Pudelton usque Cochestubbe et deinde . . . [boundaries] et continentur in parte ilia ccxlviii acre de quibus acre iiii" non sunt digne coli quia steriles et prave sunt. Et est campus orientalis cum toto campo australi sibi adiuncto medius campus cuius limes incipit apud . . sselberghe et tendit se . [boimdaries] et con- tinentur in medio campo in universo clxxvii acre terre et sunt digne coli. Tertius campus est campus occidentalis. In campo occidentali continentur cc et V acre de quibus acre xxx non sunt digne coli." 82 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS without some two-field townships, and much of the three-field evidence is of a date later than the thirteenth century. Hence it is not improbable that the predominantly three-field counties became such during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. If so, the system was a derived one, and midland England at the time of the Conquest was a region dominated by two fields. The questions with which this chapter opened have at length received such answers as accessible data admit of. There is dis- cernible in Anglo-Saxon England an open-field system, which first at the end of the twelfth century reveals itself as one of two or three fields; the territory throughout which this system prevailed was the extensive region known as the northern and southern midlands; the co-existence of two-field and three-field townships within this area as early as 1200 is apparent, but the preponderance of one group or the other in certain parts of it before the sixteenth century is no lesS obvious; finally, it is cer- tain that to some extent transition from two-field to three-field arrangements occurred during the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, and it is not improbable that the three-field system may have been altogether a derived one, arising from an im- provement in agricultural method. As the sixteenth century saw both forms of tillage employed, and as further changes had by that time set in, we are naturally led to inquire into the later history of what may henceforth be called the midland system. CHAPTER III Early Irregular Fields within the Midland Area It is well known from contemporary descriptions that the large midland area, just described as characterized by the two- and three-field system, showed other forms of open field in the eight- eenth century.! These were the result of efiforts made to recon- cile the system with the advancing agriculture of that day. Although we shall have to examine these late innovations, it would be rash to assume that they were the first of their kind until we have inquired whether, as early as 1600, irregularities were apparent in the fields of townships within the midland area. Such irregularities Tudor and Jacobean surveys show existent before 16 10. Since regions favorably situated for agricultural development must have tended to foster them, their appearance in river valleys, frequently fertile and abounding in meadows, would not be surprising. They may be looked for in the neigh- borhood of the Tees, the Trent, and the Humber; at favored spots along the course of the upper Thames; beside the Severn and its tributaries, the Warwickshire Avon and the Wiltshire Avon; and in the well-watered plains of central Herefordshire or eastern Somerset. In Appendix III have been arranged extracts from surveys illustrative of these early irregularities, many of them from one or other of the regions above mentioned.^ The field arrangements, however, of the lower Thames, a river basin without the midland area, require separate treatment.' A circumstance other than situation in a favored valley may conceivably have given rise to irregularity of field system. Sev- eral tracts of land within the midland area were in early days given over to the royal forests. In course of time settlements en- croached upon these, and the new or at least the expanding townships assarted forest land. Was this added arable now ' Cf. below, pp. 1 25 sq. * The townships referred to are located on the map which faces the title-page. 3 See Chapter IX, below. 83 84 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS cultivated as were the existent two and three fields ? To answer this question an examination of sixteenth-century descriptions is essential; and, since such an examination may perhaps best be undertaken before the more numerous documents from the river valleys receive attention, extracts from surveys of forest townships have been summarized first in Appendix III.* In Oxfordshire, just on the other side of Woodstock Park from Haiidborough and Bladon, both excellent examples of three-field arrangements, lie three other townships whose field irregularities at the end of the sixteenth century were noteworthy. All five were members of Woodstock manor. Of the three, Stonesfield was least enclosed, and here were to be found three fields apart from " Gannett's Sarte," which contained only freehold. While Church field and Callowe contributed a few acres to most copy- holds, the comprehensive arable area was Home field. This, although of little importance to the freeholders, usually comprised three-fourths or more of the acres of the customary tenants. Such an arrangement was, of course, very unlike the normal one and suggests that the first arable to be improved was occupied as a single field. To this, it would seem, two small additions had in time been made for copyholders and one for freeholders. Yet the preeminence of Home field had never been challenged. Almost as free from enclosure as Stonesfield was Wootton, where the arable lay in North field and West field, both at times called " ends." In only one instance was the virgate holding of a customary tenant divided between them, and this was because two copyholds happened to be in one man's hands. A free tenant, too, had seven acres in West field, one and one-half acres in North field. Each remaining holding was confined to one or the other of the two fields. Wootton was thus, like Stones- field, so far as the customary tenements were concerned, a township of a single field. The third member of this group. Long Coombe, had its copy- holds considerably enclosed by 4 James I. Though the acres of a large group of " Kberi tenentes per copiam " lay more often I All the surveys cited in this chapter are there in part tabulated, the order of their citation being observed. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 85 in the open fields, only one of these fields was of importance. Of West field, in which nearly all tenants, whatever their tenure, had some interest, the total area, including 28 acres of demesne, was 126 acres. In contrast, Over field contained only 285 acres, shared by a dozen tenants; Land field 34 J acres, held by six tenants; East End, apart from 17 acres of demesne, 42 acres in the hands of four tenants. The other open-field divisions were insignificant and of no interest to the copyholders. Why there should, at the end of the sixteenth century, have been three townships with markedly irregular fields so near to neighbors with regular fields is not obvious. Situation in a river valley, though true enough, will scarcely explain it, for Handborough and Bladon were even nearer the stream. A more plausible interpretation is suggested by the proximity of the three to Woodstock forest, without the bounds of which the two other townships distinctly lay. If the arable areas of the three were carved from the forest at a relatively late date, the regularity characteristic of older fields may not have been adopted. Pretty clearly Gannett's Sarte at Stonesfield was a recent addition, allotted, as it happens, only to freeholders. Where an assart can take its place independently among the divisions of the arable,' it is possible that at an earlier time other divisions came into existence in the same manner. Further evidence pointing to the same explanation is to be had from a mid-sixteenth-century survey of Ramsden, a township on the southern edge of Wychwood forest, not far from the Woodstock group. Of the nine free tenants here we learn nothing save that they held closes. Besides a cottage, there were five customary holdings, each containing a Httle enclosed land but for the most part lying in open field, above all in Olde field. Each had about one-half as many acres in Gode field as in Olde field, while there were scattering additional parcels in Shutlake, in Swynepit field, and in two assarts, HerwellSerte and Lucerte. If Olde field is balanced against all the other divisions, three of the holdings can be framed into a two-field system; since, however, the other two cannot be, it is better to class Ramsden with 1 An assart is a recently improved portion of the waste. 86 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the Woodstock group. These four Oxfordshire townships thus seem to confirm the conjecture that location in an old forest area may be a reason for the appearance of irregular field arrangements within the midland territory. Among the fields it is natural that one, an Old field or a Home field, should have been larger and more important than the others. Another forest region, somewhat nearer the outskirts of the two- and three-field area, was Arden in northwestern Warwick- shire. From it we have several Tudor and Jacobean surveys, among the best, since its copyholds are numerous and are estima- ted in virgates, being that of Hampton-in-Arden. Here, in addi- tion to three inconsequent areas that furnish an occasional acre, four fields frequently recur, or even five, if In field, which is nearly always joined with Mill field, be counted. The township thus bore a superficial resemblance to those of four fields, such as could at this time be found on the lower Avon.' Yet the virgate hold- ings do not well stand the test of quadripartite division. Often they had acres in the four fields, and occasionally a not very un- equal number (3, 3, 4, 2I; 4, 4, 4, 3; 6, 6, 8, 5I); but more often one of the fields was slighted (6, 3, 4, 2; 4, 4, 5, 2; 4, 3, 3, o), and in some cases two fields were altogether omitted (o, o, 3I, 5^; o, o, 4, 7). Since all the irregularly divided holdings were vir- gates or fractional virgates, and since there were no enclosures recently taken from the fields to account for the irregularities, it is difiicult to look upon Hampton as a strictly four-field township. Near Hampton was the manor of Knoll, comprising various hamlets. At Knoll itself the copyholds consisted very largely of enclosed meadow and pasture. So they did also in the ham- lets of Langdon and Widney, the fields of which are not separated in the survey. The freeholds of these hamlets, however, usually contained, along with preponderant enclosures, a few acres of open arable field. For the most part such acres were in Berye field and Seed furlong, but occasionally in Whatcroft and Hen field. The field parcels were often large (4, 5, u acres), and no principle of distribution among the curiously-named fields is perceptible. 1 Cf. below, p. 88. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 87 At Henley-in-Arden the Jacobean holdings were all small. Some of the largest had a few arable acres in Back field, usually- less than ten, but with this the tale of unenclosed arable in this township, brief at best, is practically complete.' Leaving, therefore, the forest of Arden we may follow the field irregular- ities that appear to have characterized it into the wooded region which is adjacent on the north. Much of the county of Stafford was probably in early days an unimproved forested area. In the southeast, indeed, we have found at RoUeston a normal six-field manor situated in the valley of the Trent, but outside the Trent valley fields in the county were Hkely to be irregular. Though Wootton-under- Weaver was not more than twenty miles north from RoUeston, its fields were five, and the method of tilling them is none too clearly discernible in the survey of i Edward VI. One field was too small to stand independently, but the attachment of it to any one of the other four does not result very satisfactorily. Yet a four-field arrange- ment is more credible than one of two or three fields, if indeed we are to predicate any regularity whatever in the grouping. The enclosures, which were few, explain nothing. At Rocester, a little farther north, the irregularity is obvious and no conciliatory grouping is possible. Areas, to be sure, are usually given in " lands," but these cannot have differed greatly in size. At best the open fields were small, containing less than seventy-five acres in all, and the tenants at will who shared in them had their " lands," it would seem, much as chance deter- mined. At Over Arley in the southwestern part of the county, on the borders of Wyre forest, most holdings appear enclosed in the survey of 44 Elizabeth. Only seven tenants shared in the open fields, the area of which was less than fifty acres, and parcels in these fields were located in an even more incidental manner than at Rocester.^ In general, therefore, outside of the Trent valley ' Land Rev., M. B. 228, ff. 40-64. The survey is so simple that it has not been summarized. ' Ibid., M. B. 185, ff. 149-156. Two tenants had parcels in Stony field, two in Great field, and five in Godfriesharne. 88 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Staffordshire seems to have been a county tending to show forest irregularities in its open fields rather than the orderliness of the two- and three-field system. Sufi&cient illustration has perhaps been given to indicate what deviations from the normal field system were in the sixteenth century to be met with in midland districts recently reclaimed from the forest. It is time to turn to the irregularities which might arise in the fields of the most favorably situated of the old townships, those of the river valleys. Since no part of England within the borders of the two- and three-field area is more endowed with natural advantages than the valleys of the southwest, the basin of the lower Severn and Avon constitutes a suitable region with which to begin our study. To assist us, sixteenth-century surveys of many monastic properties in Gloucestershire are available.' Simplest of the irregularities there visible is the four-field arrangement which several townships had adopted. Since the lower Avon and the slopes of the Cotswolds were in the thirteenth century the home of two-field husbandry,^ it is not imlikely that each of the old fields had been subdivided.' Implying, as four fields undoubtedly did in the sixteenth century, a four-course rotation of crops, this method of tillage brought into annual cultivation three-fourths instead of one-half or two-thirds of the arable of the township. The surveys of Welford and Marston Sicca, villages lying not far from the Avon, are illustrative, and have in part been sum- marized in the Appendix. The division of the holdings among four fields was remarkably exact, perhaps an indication that the arrangement was recent. One of the fields of each township was called West field, but the names of the other fields have a ring far from ancient — Sholebreade, Stabroke, Middle Barrow, Natte furlong, Nylls-and-hadland. The copyholds of Admington and Stanton, townships not far away, were divided in the same precise way among four fields, some of which bore more usual ' Particularly in Exch. K. R., M. B. 39, temp. Edw. VI. ' Cf. pp. 29-30, and Appendix II. » For later evidence of this procedure, see below, pp. 125-127, where the plan of a four-field township is also sketched. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 89 names.i Longney, too, had four important fields, but only the number of " selUons " in each is given.* Since the areas of these are imcertain and the number of them in each field was by no means the same for different holdings, the four-field character of the township cannot be established. Most field arrangements of low-lying Gloucestershire townships were in the sixteenth century not so simple as those just described. No neat four-field grouping is generally apparent. Less than five miles from Marston Sicca was situated Clapton, a member of the manor of Ham. The copyholds of the survey were rated in vir- gates, but nearly always the fields in which the acres of the virgate lay were surprisingly numerous. Usually as many as six, they might increase to twelve. Fields which appeared in one holding dropped out in another. To Lake field and Lypiatt's field most acres were usually assigned, but either of them was liable to be slighted. There were several common " crofts," Redecroft, Bancroft, Litlecroft, Prestcroft, each shared by several tenants. The township proffers a good illustration of the multi- plicity of small fields, how grouped and cultivated we do not know. Six miles out of Gloucester is Frocester, a township of the plain. About one-half of the area of the customary holdings was en- closed meadow and pasture in i Edward VI.^; the other half lay in eight small fields. South field and West field received most of the tenants' arable acres, but with no systematic divi- sion between them. Neither by joining the smaller fields with them nor by combining the latter apart can one simulate a two- or three-field system. For purposes of cultivation it apparently mattered httle in what field or fields a tenant's arable acres lay. Near Gloucester, too, was Oxlynch, a tithing of Standish, situ- ated on the slopes of the Cotswolds. In the account of its fields nine are named, though four of them seldom. Of the others, Grete 1 Exch. K. R., M. B. 39, &. 149, 155. The fields of Admington (Warks.) were Humber, Harberill, Midell furlong, and Nett; of Stanton (Gloucs.), Myddle, South, Honiburne, and North. ^ Ibid., f. 199. They were named Boinpole, Little, Acra, and Suflilde. ' 369 acres out of 707. The demesne comprised 607 acres, of which 136 were in open field. 90 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Combe, Lytelcombe, Stony field, North field, and Dawhill field, at least three usually appear in each of the holdings, which were rated in fractional virgates. Several times, too, the same three recur together, and the distribution of acres among them is not very unequal. It is, therefore, possible that Oxlynch was a three-field township with two groups of three fields. If so, it was somewhat unusual in a neighborhood given over to two-field and irregular-field arrangements. About one-third of each holding was enclosed. In the southern part of the county on the edge of the Cots- wolds, neighbor on the east to townships once clearly in two fields,! lies Horton. A survey of i Edward VI shows the tenants in possession of 980 acres, of which 302, nearly one- third, were enclosed. There is some uncertainty about the number and names of the open fields. Mershe field and Yarlinge field are clear enough, but there is an " Infeld et ahus campus vocatus Ynfeld." Careless spelling may be responsible for the separa- tion of " Endfeld " from the latter. Whatever the identifications, there is no trace of a three-field arrangement in the virgate holdings, and a two-field one is problematical. Three virgates divide their open field between Yarlinge field and Mershe field, disregarding other fields. If In field be joined with Mershe field and the " great felde " with Yarlinge field, other virgates can be subdivided according to a two-field system; but still others cannot, one lying entirely in Mershe field. If Horton had ever been or still in the sixteenth century was a two-field township, it could at least then be convicted of deviations from the norm. Three or four miles southwest of Horton and distinctly in the flat plain of the Severn is Yate, surveyed at the same time. The proportions of open field and enclosed land were here exactly reversed, two-thirds of the tenants' acres being enclosed, one- third lying in open field. In consequence there was much greater irregularity in distribution among fields than at Horton. Apart from scattering areas, three fields stood out, West field, North field, and Up field, the last necessarily an east or a south field. Although these names suggest an early three-field arrangement, ' E. g., Hawkesbury and Badminton. C£. Appendix II, pp. 464, 465. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 9 1 no holding in the sixteenth century was divided among the three with any semblance of equality, and for this reason we must look upon the township as one ahen to the midland system. Adjacent to Yate on the south is Frampton Cotterell. Here the process, well under way at Yate, was early completed, for in the survey of i Edward VI no open-field arable whatever is perceptible.! There had been a " Westfeld," to which is assigned a sohtary seven-acre parcel together with a two-acre close. Quite possibly a common meadow was still existent, for twice there is mention of such, and some 50 acres of meadow in various hold- ings are not said to have been enclosed. The remainder of the township's lands, nearly 575 acres, are minutely described as closes. Only about 90 acres were closes of arable, the rest being pasture. Thus completely had the twenty-three substantial copyholders of the township, each possessed of a messuage and upwards of 15 acres of land,^ gone over to pasture farming. And this had happened, without any evidence of high-handed procedure, in a well-peopled township ten miles distant from Bristol. To explain what system of tillage was employed on the open irregular fields of the valley townships of Gloucestershire is not easy. William Marshall, who wrote two centuries later but who knew Gloucestershire well, makes suggestive comment. He first notes with scorn the intermixture of the parcels of the several owners. Although this was a feature Ukely to be seen wherever a common-field system prevailed, Marshall apparently thought the Gloucestershire arrangement more arbitrary than that existing elsewhere. In the fields, he says, the property is not intermixed " with a view to general conveniency or an equitable distribu- tion of the lands to the several messuages of the townships they lie in, as in other places they appear to have been; but here the property of two men, perhaps neighbours in the same hamlet, will be mixed land-for-land alternately; though the soil and the distance from the messuages be nearly the same." Later he gives valuable information about the tillage of the fields. " In the 1 Rents, and Survs., Portf. 2/46, £F. 139 sq. ' Except three, who had 45, 8, and 9 acres respectively. 92 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS neighbourhood of Glocester are some extensive common fields . . . cropped, year after year, during a century, or perhaps cen- turies; without one intervening whole year's fallow. Hence they are called ' Every Year's Land.' On these lands no regular succession of crops is observed; except that ' a brown and a white crop' — pulse and corn — are cultivated in alternacy. The in- closed arable lands are under a similar course of management." ' Tillage of this kind, characterized by absence of fallowing and by a varying succession of crops, would go far, if it were practiced two centuries before Marshall's time, to explain irregularities in field systems. Nor is such early practice improbable. Mar- shall conjectures that the usage was ancient; and the proximity of townships which the tenants themselves had seen fit to enclose, such as Frampton Cotterell, argues that there was abroad a spirit of innovation and a desire so to cultivate fertile land as to get from it the most ample return. Pertinent evidence regarding irregularities in Gloucestershire tillage as early as the thirteenth century has been pointed out by Vinogradoff.'' It relates to a custom known as making an " inhoc " (inhoc facere) . This consisted in enclosing for a year's cultivation a part of the arable fallow which would in the normal course of tillage have lain uncultivated. The anonymous author of a treatise on husbandry written before the end of the thir- teenth century knew the custom well.' It was the exaction of an added crop from the soil, a demand which could not at that time be made too often. In the instance which Vinogradoff cites, it was thought possible to enclose (inhocare) every second year 40 acres out of 174 which were tilled under a three-course rotation.^ In other words, from the 58 acres which would normally each year have Iain fallow, 20 were put under contribution for an extra 1 William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire, including its Dairy (2 vols., Gloucester, 1789), i. 17, 65-66. ^ Villainage in England, pp. 226-227. ' " E si liad inhom il deit ver quale coture il [the provost of the manor] prent en le inhom & de quel ble il seme chescune coture. . . " {Walter of Henley's Htisbandry, together with an Anonymous Husbandry, etc., ed. E. Lamond, 1890, p. 66). ^ Historia et Cariularium Monaslerii S. Petri Gloucestriae (ed. W. H. Hart, Rolls Series, 3 vols., 1863-67), iii. 35. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 93 harvest. If all the 1 74 acres were treated alike, each one, instead of being fallowed every third year, was fallowed twice during a period of nine years. Although this instance refers to demesne lands which seem not to have lain in the common arable fields, the other case cited by Vinogradoff makes note of the tenants' interest in the lands which are to be subject to " inhoc," an intimation that these were open arable field.' A usage of this sort would not, of course, immediately affect the integrity of a field system. The old bipartite or tripartite division might still be kept and a survey give no indication of the new custom. But in time the innovation was bound to tell upon field divisions; for these would gradually be shifted so as to reflect the superior tillage, until by the sixteenth century the fields may have become as abnormal as we have just seen them. If these conjectures are correct, the irregularities of the surveys represent an intermediate step between the already improving agriculture of the thirteenth century and the " every-year " lands which Marshall knew. To the west of Gloucestershire the valleys of the Wye and Lug constitute the largest and most fertile part of Herefordshire. Relative to this coimty testimony from the sixteenth century and from an earlier period has already been advanced to show that the three-field system was once existent there .^ It must now be pointed out that alongside three-field townships there appeared in due course others which differed from them. Several Jacobean surveys from Herefordshire manifest characteristics in- dicative of a departure from normal arrangements. Most striking of these irregularities are the large number of small fields and the break-up of the old tenements. One of the townships of the manor of Stockton, a manor which has already testified to the existence of the three-field system in the county, betrays in the sixteenth century a tendency toward multiplicity of fields. This is Middleton, about one-fourth of whose area was then enclosed meadow or pasture. The arable, ' Registrum Malmesburiense (ed. J. S. Brewer, Rolls Series, 2 vols., 1879-80), ii. 186. The " campi " in question were those of Brokenborough, a township on the upper Avon in Wiltshire, but very near Gloucestershire. ^ Cf. pp. 37, 64-66, above. 94 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS which constituted the remaining three-fourths, lay in many com- mon fields, and only by following the names of these does the true complexity of the situation become apparent. In the dozen holdings transcribed in Appendix III about forty field names appear, some of them only once. We might suspect them of be- ing apphcable to closes held in severalty, were it not that nearly every one is said to refer to a communis campus. Since a tenant's holding was likely to He in from three to nine of these areas, any attempt to group them according to the three-field system is naturally a hopeless task. The open fields of Middleton had by the end of the sixteenth century got into such a condition that their enclosure cannot have been difl&cult.^ The same multiplicity of fields characterized certain townships of the manor of Ivington, from two of which, Hope-under- Dinmore and Brierley, holdings are likewise summarized. In both, enclosures constituted from one-fifth to one-third of each holding. At Hope three fields. Over, Down, and Priesthey, fre- quently recur in the survey; but if a holding had acres in all of them it had most in Over field. Though four other fields occa- sionally appear, they caimot be grouped with the three so as to redress inequaUties among the latter. At Brierley there were seven noteworthy fields, among which Gorve field and " le Much Howe " received the largest apportionment of acres. While a few holdings admit of a three-field interpretation, the rest are not amenable to it. Equally perplexing are the fields of Stoke Edith, which in 40 Elizabeth were described as largely open. The specifications of the survey are not always lucid, parcels being sometimes desig- nated "ridges"; but the holdings transcribed, which can be little questioned, serve to show the open-field areas small, numer- ous, and indifferent to a three-field grouping. In certain of the Stoke Edith holdings that are not trans- cribed there is trace of another tendency characteristic of Here- fordshire fields. This is the break-up of old tenements and the dispersion of their parcels among several new tenants. What is meant will become clear by the consideration of a Jacobean ' There is no record of their enclosure by act of parliament. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 95 survey of the large manor of Maiden,' although this is irritatingly complicated. The freehold entries number 35, the copyhold 141, nearly all recording small areas.^ There were about 70 messuages in the hands of some 57 independent householders.' The manor comprised several townships/ each apparently with its own fields, although in some cases there may have been no sharp division of common fields among them.^ The following holding is charac- teristic of the survey, and serves to emphasize the feature in which we are for the moment interested — the break-up of traditional tenements : — " Ricardus Grene tenet per copiam da tarn anno regni regine Elizabethe xxxiv unum mesuagium, pomerium et clausam adia- centem continentem i acram nuper Thome Stead per copiam . . . Elizabethe ii, i acram in Holbach feild in villata de Venne nUper Hugonis Lane per copiam . . . Elizabethe xxix, ii acras in Lake feild per copiam . . . Elizabethe xK, ii acras in Fromanton [another villata] in quodam campo ibidem vocato Holbach feild nuper Thome Wootton per copiam . . . Elizabethe xxv, dimidiam acram de Socke- land iacentem in Nashill feild per copiam . . . Elizabethe xl, ii rodas in Ashill feild nuper Johanis Parsons per copiam . . .Elizabethe xxv, dimidiam acram in Ashill . . . in occupatione Johanis Mathie per copiam . . . Elizabethe xxxv, unam acram terre custumarie de Soakeland in Odich feild nuper Willelmi Stephens ' Land Rev., M. B. 217, £f. 194-292. ^ Sometimes the subdivision of the holdings (especially of the larger ones) among the fields is not given. A few of the tenants were gentlemen. ^ Seven cottages were held by a single person, and six messuages by tenants each already possessed of a messuage. * " Item that there are within the said Lordshippe of Marden viii severall villages or Towneshipps viz. Marden, Fromanton, Sutton, Freene, Wisteston, Vauld, Verne, Fenne, and Marston and that they and everie of them are to doe suyte to the said Courte of the said Manner . . ." (Land Rev., M. B. 217, f. 290). ' Venne and Fromanton, two of the townships which appear in the following holding, seem to have shared in Holbach field. 96 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS per copiam . . . EKzabethe iv, unam acram terre custumarie de Sokeland iacentem in Fromanton ... in campo ibidem vocato Nashill nuper Willelmi Cooke per copiam . . . PhiKpi ii et Marie iii, unam acram in Froman- ton in quodam loco vocato Odyche nuper Jacobi Greene, patris sui." ' During the second half of the sixteenth century Richard Grene is thus seen acquiring ten and one-half acres through no fewer than ten different grants by copy. Starting in the time of Philip and Mary with an acre which had been his father's, he had added par- cel after parcel up to the last years of Ehzabeth's reign, some acquisitions being customary sokeland, others simple copyhold. These parcels had formerly been in the possession of six tenants, many of whose other acres had also passed out of their hands.^ Obviously such an agglomerate holding as this of Grene's can instruct us Httle about the original field system of the townships of the manor, but the bare fact that such tenements were in process of formation proves that the rules of three-field tillage can scarcely have been observed at the end of the sixteenth cen- tury. Grene had, to be sure, taken pains to acquire parcels in the three fields which are assigned to Fromanton. Yet there were years when he did not possess them aU, and one of these fields (Holbach) was not restricted to Fromanton, since Venne also had interests in it. Grene, further, did not hesitate to acquire two acres in Lake field, which the enclosure map shows to have been at some distance and which was probably not one of the fields of Fromanton.^ Shifting arrangements of this sort caimot well have been the concomitant of a systematic three- field system. Another Marden illustration emphasizes what has been said above, and in addition reveals clearly the natural outcome of unstable tenements and a decadent field system. John Car- wardyn held by four copies lands which had once been John Heere's, Richard Heere's, and (for the most part) Richard ' Land Rev., M. B. 217, f. 211. 2 As is shown in the descriptions of various holdings. ' Cf. the sketch of the enclosure map of Marden, p. 147, below. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 97 Danyell's.' Among them was half a messuage accompanying half of a virgate of customary sokeland lying in the township of Verne. The half-virgate comprised, besides garden, orchard, and two- acre curtilage, " Clausam pasture do novo inclusam extra communem cam- pum vocatum Lawfeild continentem per estimationem i acram dimidiam Aliam parcellam pasture de novo inclusam in Senacre feild Terram arabilem iacentem in communibus campis de Mawar- den cuius quantitatem juratores ignorant." This tenant had, it appears, enclosed the part of his virgate which lay in two of the open common fields. The procedure is what might have been expected and permitted when the vitality of the ol(i system had been sapped. Although, as it happens, much of the manor of Harden remained open for two centuries longer,^ Here- fordshire townships in general became enclosed, and the nature of the open fields as displayed in the foregoing illustrations must have been one of the causes contributory to enclosure. Mxilti- pUcity of fields and disintegration of the old tenements were transitional phases in the passage from the old system to the new, and the motive prompting the change was probably the same as that effective in Gloucestershire — a desire to cultivate the soil more advantageously than the three-field system permitted. A region which in situation and soil was well adapted to im- prove upon a primitive system of agriculture was eastern Somer- set. In early days a two-field system had there prevailed, and nearly all townships which appear in Appendix II utilized it for the cultivation of their arable in the thirteenth century. From the southeastern part of the county the Tudor survey of Mar- tock, with its members Hurst and Bower Henton, has been cited in a preceding chapter to illustrate symmetrical three-field ar- rangements.' None the less, Tudor and Jacobean surveys from Somerset which disclose the two or three old fields still intact are exceptional. To show how most records of this date picture 1 Land Rev., M. B. 217, f. 224, ' Cf. p. 32, above. ^ Cf. p. 140, below. 98 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the original system in various stages of decay, holdings from several surveys have been transcribed in Appendix III and now claim attention. Adjacent to Martock and situated on the river Parret is Kings- bury, the Jacobean survey of which records that many of the ancient holdings called " de antiquo austro " were largely or entirely enclosed. Such were the three still rated in virgates and " fardells," or quarter- virgates, and such were most of the numer- ous holdings not here transcribed. Others had still a few or even the majority of their acres in open fields. Of these open fields, the three which were largest and most often recurrent were Byneworth, Kylworth, and Hill field, their total areas being 68, 41, and 38 acres respectively. At the same time the customary holdings at Kangsbury, exclusive of cottages, numbered nearly 70. Obviously the share of any tenant in the arable fields must have been slight, seldom so much as ten acres and usually less than five. Some of the holdings which received most liberal allotments have been transcribed, but even in them there was no distribution of acres among fields that suggests a regular system. The names of certain fields, too, Byneworth, Kylworth, Tunnland, Deanland, were unusual. Kingsbury is thus revealed at the end of the six- teenth century, not only as a parish largely enclosed, but as one that had about it little trace of the system which once charac- terized the countryside. These features it probably owed to its situation ; for it is a river township, and its rich bottom lands must have been early turned to pasturage and improved tillage. Not unHke Kingsbury was another low-lying manor, that of East Brent, situated nearer the Bristol Channel. Holdings from two of the tithings, which have been transcribed from the Jaco- bean survey, illustrate the predominance here of enclosed pas- ture. Of the arable most was enclosed, but some lay in small open fields and appeared in the copyholds sporadically. There were a few acres " super le Downe." Reduced in condition though they were, a West field and an East field still had prece- dence; in them lay most of the open arable acres, though no longer with two-field precision. The manor was one which EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 99 had almost forgotten its early days in its adherence to pasture farming.! Similarly unmindful of their thirteenth-century condition were two townships nearer the Wiltshire border, not far removed from Bath and Wells respectively. These were Norton St. Philip and West Pennard. In the copyholds of the former enclosures so much predominated that only a half-dozen still had any parcels left in the two fields, which we discern to have been North and South. Since a considerable area in the North field known as " goddes peece " had not long since been converted to enclosed pasture, Norton St. Philip seems already to have devoted itself to the dairy farming of which it boasts today. West Pennard, a manor once belonging to Glastonbury, was more conservative. Although its holdings were generally about half enclosed and devoted to pasturage, there were in each several acres of open arable field. Often these lay in " Easterne Downe " and " Westerne Downe," so disposed as to tempt one to see in these " Downes " two old fields; but such a conclusion might be hasty, inasmuch as remains of a South field existed and at times some holdings manifested a kind of three-field attitude toward Breach field, Westmore field, and Eastmore field. In view of these contradictions, we can only insist upon the general irregu- larity of the field arrangements without trying to probe into their past. Finally, certain townships may be cited to show the two-field system just inclining to decay. On the tongue of high land which borders Sedgemoor in mid-Somerset is situated Curry Mallett, where in 1610 the two old fields. East and West, were still easily recognizable. They had been encumbered, though Two manors of the Earl of Pembroke, surveyed in 9 Elizabeth, lay in this part of the county. South Brent seems to. have been entirely enclosed. At Chedzoy near Bridgewater, however, there was considerable unenclosed land, much of it meadow. Seldom did one-half of a holding he in open arable field, while the fraction might fall to one-seventh and was usually one-third or one-fourth. The fields which most often appear are East and North, the former receiving the greater number of acres. At times there is reference to West field and Slapeland field, but no indications of a regular field system are visible. Cf. C. R. Straton, Survey of the Lands of William, First Earl of Pembroke (2 vols., Roxburghe Club, 1909), ii. 471-486, 442-471. lOO ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS only a little, with such appendages as the Slade, the Breache, and Eyeberie. It was still possible for a tenant to have eleven acres in one, ten in the other, while a small holding, like that of John Polman might even lie largely in the open fields. Yet nearly all copyholders had withdrawn from these fields much of their arable. Departing, however, from the usual practice, they had not converted this into pasture, of which little is described in the survey. Yet it is probable that the " arable " of the enclosures was not without experience of convertible husbandry, and that the copyholders did at times turn their fields into pasture for a year or two. Pasture for sheep or cattle was the less necessary at Curry Mallett since tenants had unstinted common in Sedge- moore. It will be remembered that Somerset could still in Jacobean days furnish a typical two-field township. Such was South Stoke, situated near Bath, and already described. Not a dozen miles away, Corston had departed from the norm only a little farther. Its two fields were North field and South field, between which several of the holdings, and these large ones, divided their arable evenly enough. Other tenements, however, manifested no equality of division, having many more acres in North field than in South field. Enclosure of a part of the South field may well have been the cause of this, though we are not informed. At any rate, there was in each of these holdings enough enclosed land to redress the balance between the fields, if it may be assumed that some of it had once been a part of them. One more Somersetshire illustration is pardonable, since it shows the two old fields still existent, though moribund, so late as 1684. The hill township of Bruton in the eastern part of the county was once the seat of a priory. Some ten of the copy- holders still in the seventeenth century had acres in North field or South field, the totals being 255 and 19, with 4J acres not located. The numerous lessees, holding for fife or for 99 years, had in addition 53 acres in North field, 13 in South field, with 47 acres elsewhere.* Seldom was there such distribution of acres as • There are two or three notes about parcels recently enclosed. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS lOI would indicate a two-field system still effective; and the proba- bility that it was so is slight, since five-sixths of the leasehold and two-thirds of the copyhold lay enclosed. Many Somerset townships must at the end of the seventeenth century have been like Bruton, a fact which would account for the comparatively small amount of arable within the county affected by act of parliament.' A Wiltshire township, situated, like most of those above de- scribed, in a district favorable for improved or for pasture farm- ing, shows by the Glastonbury survey of lo Henry VIII that it was already availing itself of its natural advantages. Christian Malford is in the valley of the Wiltshire Avon, where the downs do not yet dose in as they do at Bath. Low-lying lands abound. In consequence about one-half of each virgate (and the virgates were large) consisted of closes, but whether these were pasture we do not learn. Altogether the copyholders had 753 acres of enclosed land, in comparison with 68 acres of common meadow and 941 acres in the open arable fields. For a township in the heart of the two-field area these fields were numerous. There was, to be sure, a North field and a West field, though few of the %Trgate holdings had acres in both of them and some had acres in neither. Other fields were often favored — Little field, Bene- hul field, Middel field, Wode furlong — and in the most arbitrary manner. A virgater sometimes had more arable acres in one field than he had in all the others, while the domiuant field at times varied from \'irgate to Ndrgate. North field, which in many holdings was not mentioned, contained nearh^ all the acres of four distinct \Trgates. Neither uniformity of distribution nor equality of apportionment among fields is anyn-here perceptible in the survey. At the beginning of the sixteenth century Chris- tian ^Malford was £is far removed from the appearance of two- ' For the entire county Slater (English Peasantry, p. 298) cites only forty-one • acts relative to open arable field. Of these all except six estimate the areas to be en- closed. Nine thousand acres are said to have been arable, eleven thousand more partly arable, partly pasture. Since the coimty contains 1,043,409 acres, the open-field arable enclosed by act of parliament was only between one and two per cent of the area of the county. In Oxfordshire, as the following chapter will show, it was about thirty-seven per cent of the county's area. 102 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS and three-field townships as disregard of their field conventions could render it.^ Before we pass to the north of England, we should not fail to note the decay of a two-field system in the Isle of Wight. The precise division of acres between two fields, characteristic of Wellow," was unusual in surveys from that island. At Niton in 6 James I there were still two fields, but they had suffered from the activity of the tenant encloser, most holdings being half or more than half enclosed. While the acres had been abstracted sometimes from one field, sometimes from the other, East field had shrunken more; in it there remained but 53 acres of copy- hold, while West field contained 71 and tlie enclosures 167J. Of common meadow there was scarcely any. At " Uggaton " the appearance of open-field names in the sur- vey is so infrequent that it is doubtful whether such fields really survived. One tenant had 2^ acres in South field, two had together 2^ acres in North field, four had 29J acres in West field. That was all. Since such data are too slight to build inferences upon, the township should be looked upon as practically enclosed by 6 James I.' Enclosed beyond all doubt were the fields of Thorley, sur- veyed at the same time.'' All areas are said to be closes, although the character of these as pasture or arable is not specified. What is interesting here and at "Uggaton " is the goodly array of copy- holders whom no evicting landlord seems to have disturbed. At " Uggaton " there were eighteen with from 5 to 68 acres of land apiece, at Thorley fifteen similarly circumstanced. To be sure, these manors were royal ones, upon which evictions could not be- comingly have taken place; yet they make it clear that the quiet passage from open fields to enclosures could be effected in the ' The numerous Wiltshire manors of the Earl of Pembroke, surveyed in 9 Eliza- beth, were largely in two or three fields (cf. below. Appendix II, pp. 501-503). Four, however, Bower Chalk, Chilmark, Hilcott, and Stockton, had adopted a four-field arrangement. Two, Berwick St. John and Bedwyn, had irregular fields, due prob- ably to their situation in remote upland valleys. Cf. Straton, Survey of llie Lands of William, First Earl of Pembroke, vol. i. ' Cf. above, p. 31. ' Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 421. Because the open fields were so insignificant, no holdings have been transcribed in Appendix III. * Ibid. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 103 Isle of Wight without serious diminution of tenants.' Since the copyholders themselves presumably desired such change, the process may be looked upon as a natural one. Leaving the irregularities of the south and west, we may now inquire whether similar phenomena were to be found at the end of the sixteenth century within the northern part of the midland area. Most important of the river valleys here are those of the Trent and Humber. Just removed from the banks of the latter river in Yorkshire lies Willerby, where nominally the fields were six, though two wSre small and another very small. If the two be combined, and the smallest be annexed to any one of the others, we shall have in each holding four nearly equal areas. The combination of the two is further permissible, since it is ToflBin- dale, not called a field, which is thus annexed to West field. All the other large areas are designated fields — Lowe field, Earke- gate field, Langland field — while even the diminutive tract is dubbed Ellerylund field. If this grouping be correct, there was here a four-field arrangement like that characteristic of the plain of the lower Avon. Before proceeding up the valley of the Trent we may turn aside for a moment to another Yorkshire township, that of Breighton on the Derwent. Here the Jacobean survey records five fields of importance — Longland, Borne, South, Car, and Hallmore. Sometimes a tenant had acres in three of them, sometimes in four, sometimes in the five, yet without uniform distribution and in accordance with no system which is apparent by tentative grouping. Some tenants had several acres of enclosed land, but the assumption that these had been taken from the fields does not clear up the subject. Although a four-field arrangement is a little more plausible than any other, so incongruous at times is the distribution of acres that the kind of system employed must remain in doubt. Passing now from the Humber to the Trent, we straightway reach the fertile Isle of Axholme, where lies the township of 1 One of the first anti-enclosure acts (4 Hen. VII, c. 16) refers to the Isle of Wight as a region suffering from depopulation. Cf. Gay, " Inquisitions of De- population in 1517," p. 232. I04 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Owston, of which a Jacobean survey survives. The holdings were small and are not always rated by bovates. The freehold amounted to 247 acres, of which 102 were enclosed and 36 com- mon meadow; of the 239 acres of copyhold, 43 were enclosed and 17 common meadow. Thus less than two- thirds of the tenants' lands lay in open field, and if a holding were a little short in the acres of one field it had enclosed land as a resource. Glancing now at the distribution of the open-field arable of the tenements, we see pretty clearly that the system was, or not long since had been, one of four fields. The larger* customary hold- ings (all of which are shown in the Appendix) were unanimous in dividing their areas among four fields, although the division was not sharp-cut, like that at Marston Sicca or Welford. Despite this laxity and the relatively extensive enclosures, the survey is our best illustration of four-field arrangements in the north. Farther up the Trent near Nottingham are Lenton and Rad- ford, both of which formed the home manor of Lenton priory. Their fields are described together in a Jacobean survey, the acres of the bovates being frequently distributed among all six of them. Three of the fields were smaller than the others, and some one of them was often not represented in a holding. We might conclude that the arrangement inclined to three main fields with three supplementary ones; yet, if such were the case, groupings to prove it are not easily made. The three fields in each of which the small holding of Andrew Webster had one-half acre are said to be the fields of Lenton. If the other three were the fields of Radford and the two groups were tilled together, the combination should be Beck field and More field, Red field and Church field. Sand field and Alwell field; but neither this nor any other arrangement always works out happily. In each hold- ing there was considerable common meadow, a fact which may accoimt for discrepancies. Only by assuming that parcels of arable in the fields had been converted into meadow,^ can we group the six fields by twos so as to make the former existence of a three-field system credible. ' For contemporary instances of this process, see p. 35, above, and p. 106, below. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS 105 Although instances of irregularities like these may be found in the valley of the Trent and its neighborhood, they are less numerous than similar phenomena in the southwest. The north- ern midlands were more like the southeastern in retaining until the end of the sixteenth century an unvarying three-field character. Farther to the north, however, several interesting irregular fields deserve notice. They were situated to the south and west of Durham, in the territory which has provisionally been designated as the northern outpost of the three-field system. It will be remembered that this designation was hazarded in connection with the survey of Ingleton. The symmetrical three- field aspect of that township we may see repeated in the descrip- tions of thirteen of its neighbors.^ All are taken from a series of Jacobean surveys relative to the extensive manors of Raby, Barnard Castle, and Brancepeth, the members of which are situated for the most part where the moors slope eastward toward the valleys of the Tees and Wear. Those townships lying in the plain of the Tees were the ones in which the three-field system was most intact. ■ Others that He more on the uplands inclined to enclosure and pasturage. This is particularly true of the members of Brancepeth,^ to the west of Durham, where the neighborhood of the Wolds may have been responsible for irregu- larities in field arrangements; for it is not improbable that some arable here was a relatively recent improvement from the waste, akin in this respect to that of forest townships. Yet certain mem- bers of the manor cannot be thus classified: Willington, Stockley, Eldon, and East Brandon are near enough to the river Wear to have had a long field history. Conditions at East Brandon, as pictured in the Appendix, illustrate the irregularities of these river townships and show what might have been seen in Jacobean days just outside the gates of Durham. Closes in the township were few, scarcely more than the acre or two attached to the homesteads. Nor was the intermixed arable in the common fields very great in amount. Several tenants had ' Cf. Appendix II, pp. 462-463. ' Crook and Billy Row, Thomley, Willington, Stockley, Helme Park, Comsey, Eldon, East Brandon. Io6 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS a few acres in Rudenhill, in West field, and in Watergate field, but the arable of others lay entirely elsewhere. William Briggs had eleven acres at Hareham, where he had still more meadow and pasture. Indeed, this brings us to what is perhaps most noteworthy about the survey — the appearance in certain fields of meadow alongside the arable. Lowe field was most trans- formed by such procedure, for seldom did the tenants retain any arable there. Instead they had large parcels of meadow, some- times as many as twenty acres; nor does anything indicate that these parcels were enclosed. They seem, rather, to have remained open and to point to a gradual abandonment of arable tillage. Such an abandonment is more clearly indicated by another sur- vey of this series, that of Eggleston.' Eggleston lies well up the valley of the Tees, and still in 5 James I maintained its three fields. East, Middle, and West, among which several holdings were divided with a show of equality. Presumably the fields had once been largely arable. When, however, the survey was made change had begun, though not in the direction of enclosure, of which there was still little. Conversion to meadow had pro- ceeded without it: nearly all the parcels of the various tenants in East field and West field are said to have been meadow; arable still predominated only in Middle field, and even there it had begun to yield. The survey is instructive in showing how natu- rally conditions arose which must soon have called for enclosure as a matter of convenience. Eggleston did not stand alone in its early seventeenth-century transformation. Westwick, situated a Uttle way down the river, had begun to make the change at the same time. Apart from large parcels of pasture which each holding had on the moor, from one-third to one-half of the fields (High, Middle, and Low) had become meadow. Whorlton, still farther down the Tees, was making a similar transition, though rather more than one- half of each holding in the three fields remained arable. At Bolam the arable and meadow in the fields (East, West, and North) were nearly equal in amount. At Willington, once more, ' Cf. Appendix III. For this and the Durham surveys mentioned below, see Land Rev., M. B. 192, 193. EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS IN THE MIDLANDS lOJ meadow predominated. Since these townships lie not on the fells, but in the valleys, and since their erstwhile three-field char- acter is clear, we have here an interesting departure from the normal system. It appears that in several places in Durham the old open arable fields were in a state of decay. The tenants pre- ferred meadow and had converted into meadow many of their open-field strips. Pretty clearly the next step was to be consoli- dation and enclosure. Under these circumstances there could be no occasion for complaint about enclosure as preceding and in- ducing conversion. The processes were reversed, and the change thereby became more natural. The enclosure of many Durham townships seems to have oc- curred not very long after these Jacobean surveys were made. Miss Leonard has described the agreements, enrolled on the register of the court of the bishopric, by which the open fields of upwards of twenty townships were re-allotted between 1633 and 1700. The preambles, she says, often assign as reason for the enclosure the fact that the land " is wasted and worn with continual ploweing, and thereby made bare, barren and very imfruitefuU." ' Doubtless this was a motive with such town- ships as still lay largely in arable, and we have seen them numer- ous in the days of James I; but in those townships whose open fields had become largely meadow the desire to complete a process begun must have been operative. If so, we have ante- cedent changes in the field system as one explanation of the disappearance of open arable fields in Durham. Our somewhat prolonged progress through the two- and three- field area should ere this have served at least one end. It should have made clear that, even within a territory unmistakably char- acterized by one t5^e of open field,, conditions were not uniform at the end of the sixteenth century. A stretch of forest or of wold might cause marked deviation; still more might a river with its bordering meadows. In the heart of the two- and three- field area departures from the norm were not frequent, but in the outlying counties they occurred often enough to threaten the integrity of the system. As a result, certain districts within the ' " Inclosure of Common Fields," p. 117. Io8 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS boundary which the thirteenth century would have drawn round the two- and three-field area seem in the sixteenth century to detach themselves. Such in particular were the counties of the west, — Herefordshire and Shropshire/ parts of Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, and Somerset, — the Isle of Wight in the south, and part of the county of Durham in the north. In Tudor days these were regions characterized by innovations in field systems, most of which looked toward the im- provement of agriculture. Either the arable of a township had been subdivided in such a way that more of it than before could be utilized for tillage, or large portions of it had been converted into remunerative meadow or pasture. The latter process had at times been accompanied by enclosure, at times not. Even if it had been, there is often no evidence that the tenants had been dispossessed. To ascertain more fully the relation existing be- tween the decadence of the midland field system and the advance of agriculture, especially the enclosure of the open fields, a closer study of what happened in typical counties is essential. ' Since we have few satisfactory surveys from Shropshire, none have been sum- marized. That of the manor of Cleobury shows irregular field arrangements (Land Rev., M. B. 185, £f. 86-97, 21 Eliz.), and it is highly probable that the county differed little in this respect from Herefordshire on the south and Staffordshire on the east. CHAPTER IV The Later History of the Midland System in Oxfordshire and Herefordshire It was pointed out in the Introduction that agricultural progress in England would ultimately demand the disappearance df the open-field system. A form of tillage so inconvenient, so inflex- ible, so negligent of the productivity of the soil, could not long endure after technical improvement in ploughing had made pos- sible its abandonment and after its social advantages had come to be disregarded. This significant change, however, it is clear, was not Hkely to take place suddenly, but improvements in the old system would slowly lead up to it. The probable substitution of three- field for two-field arrangements throughout a large part of the midlands during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was only a first step in this advance. Other and later innovations have been disclosed in the preceding chapter. By the sixteenth century, it appears, some townships had already hedged in a part of their arable fields while leaving the remainder open, a piecemeal method of enclosure which seems to have been a kind of experi- ment imdertaken by men who would not yet risk the complete abandonment of open fields. Elsewhere innovation took the form of a multiplicity of fields. To judge from the allotment of tenants' acres among them, these numerous fields could not have been tilled in accordance with two- or three-field arrangements, and in them undoubtedly less arable was left fallow each year than under the normal system. Still other townships remained true to the principles of regularity, but subdivided their two fields into four, of which three were tilled annually. All these changes constitute a step in agricultural progress similar to that which substituted three fields for two. Each in its way sought the ultimate goal, a goal involving consolidation of parcels. f lO ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS enclosure of holdings, abandonment of fallowing, and the em- ployment of convertible husbandry. Together these innovations bring the subject of field systems into immediate touch with the subject of enclosures, a topic, of course, too comprehensive -to be treated adequately except in an independent monograph.' It can be discussed here only in relation to the final transforma- tion of midland open fields and the accompanying improvements in agriculture. An understanding of the situation can perhaps best be attained by an examination of typical districts. We should, for example, like to know how the midland system fared in a county where it once prevailed and where open fields longest remained. We should, again, Uke to know what happened in counties where it once prevailed but where open fields early tended to evince irregu- larities and decay. In order to approach the subject in this manner, it will be advantageous to examine somewhat in detail the later open-field history of Oxfordshire, a county in which open fields long persisted. An accurate picture of the progress of events there will make clear what went on in most of the counties characterized by the two- and three-field system. A proper corrective will then be introduced by an examination of the earlier decline of the system in Herefordshire, a western county typical in this respect. An account of the midland system in Oxfordshire between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries is without doubt best begun by a description of its condition at the time when it disappeared. How long and how extensively, one may ask, did it resist attack, and what innovations had it meanwhile adopted ? Such ques- tions are in a measure answered by the parliamentary enclosure awards, few of which, it will be remembered, are earlier than 175s and few later than 1870. During this century, however, the journals of the commons and the lords are distended with the records of acts authorizing the enclosures which the awards describe. These acts have been conveniently catalogued by Slater, who has also constructed maps which indicate roughly the areas ' Cf. above, pp. lo-ii. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 1 1 affected.' Since many acts neglect to give even the approximate areas to be enclosed, his presentation could not attain to any considerable accuracy.^ This defect can be remedied only by an appeal to the awards, a toilsome undertaking upon which no one has yet ventured. Until it is attempted we shall have to accept Slater's results. For the coimties of Oxford and Here- ford, however, it has here seemed best to consult all accessible awards, in order that the disappearance of the midland system within limited areas may be described as accurately as possible. This chapter, therefore, stands to Slater's lists and maps fdr these two counties as the awards do to the acts. It forms a comple- tion of the sketch. The awards, ponderous as they are, do not always supply such exact information as is desirable, since their form and content varied considerably during the century which saw their prepara- tion. The early ones are relatively brief and xminforming, telling very little about the open fields which they enclosed save, at times, the mmaber of virgates and the total areas. Only toward 1800 did it become usual in Oxfordshire to refer to the ancient field divisions in locating new allotments, and in many instances this was then done cursorily in the text, without notice of the old sub- divisions on the plan. Again, a large allotment was often assigned to several field areas without specification of how much belonged to each. Under these circumstances it frequently becomes difl&- cult to tell exactly what was the size and what the arrangement of the old fields. Toward the middle of the nineteenth century the plans accompanying the awards, though large and detailed • English Peasantry, Appendix and maps. ' Two shortcomings are most noticeable. One, in the appendix, is due primarily to the neglect of the acts to state the areas to be enclosed. The phraseology of the acts, fmther, is often such that it is impossible to discriminate between arable field and common waste, while the Norfolk acts are deceptive in still another way (cf. p. 305). The second shortcoming appears in the maps, where no attempt is made to distinguish between townships in which there was a large amount of arable field remaining qpen until parUamentary enclosure and those in which there was little. Townships in which there was any enclosure of arable whatever appear as do those in which there was much. It is questionable whether discrimination in this matter would not have been more acceptable in the maps than are the dis- tinctions by periods which the author has preferred to indicate. 1 1 2 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS as to the arable strips, often have nothing to say about fields, but require the student to puzzle out the arrangement from the schedule, as has been done in the case of Chalgrove.' These late awards, furthermore, like some earher ones, do not trouble to add up the allotments, but throw that burden upon the investi- gator. Most annoying of all, however, is the brevity which, in both early and late awards, combines arable and waste without specifying the respective areas of each. For this reason it is often necessary to estimate the extent of the waste, and at times there are no data for such an estimate.^ The entire en- closure has then to be set down as arable, an expedient which obviously exaggerates the amount of arable that was enclosed. A final difl&culty comes in determining the areas of the old en- closures. Seldom are they stated. Sometimes they can be computed from the plan by a comparison of the space there as- signed to them with that assigned to the open areas. Again, when it may be assumed that the area of the township has re- mained substantially unchanged and that no other open common land existed save that described in the award (or awards), the old enclosures may be obtained by subtraction. To ascertain them in this way, we need only deduct the combined area of open- field arable and unenclosed waste from the area of the town- ship. Sometimes, lastly, the allotment for tithes is so described in the award that the part of it made in lieu of tithes due from old enclosures is distinguished from the part made in lieu of tithes due from open fields. Since the former was about one-ninth of the value of the old enclosures,' the area of these ' Cf. above, p. 21. ' In the later awards the allotment to the lord of the manor, as such, for his rights in the waste was about one-fifteenth or one-sixteenth of the waste divided. In the tables of the Appendix the area of the uncultivated common has often been computed from this entry. ' It is so in the award for Blackthorn, Oxons. At Sandford St. Martin it was one- sixth, at Burford one-fifth. The estimate in question is valid only if no old en- closures had already been exempted from tithes. A divergence "between an esti- mate got in this way and the area obtained by subtracting the total enclosure from the total area of the township may arise because some old enclosures had already been exempted before the award was made. The divergences are noted below in Appendix IV. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM II3 enclosures may in such cases be computed. When different com- putations as to the areas of old enclosures do not agree, the area got by subtracting open-field arable and waste from the entire township has been here adopted. Despite all the uncer- tainties attendant upon the examination of the awards, a study of them repays the labor, since the information which they yield is far more precise than that to be secured in any other way. The open fields of Oxfordshire which were enclosed by act of parliament are set down township by township in Appendix IV. The townships are grouped in accordance with the percentage of the area in each which, exclusive of the waste, was thus enclosed. This arrangement amounts to a comparison between the open- field arable and meadow on the one hand and the old enclosures on the other. The assigrmient of a township to a group has depended upon whether the land to be enclosed, apart from the ■vy^aste, amounted to more than three-fourths of the township's total area, or to less than three-fourths but to more than one- half of it, or to less than one-half but to more than one-fourth of it, or, lastly, to less than one-fourth of it. The history of parhamentary enclosure between 1758 and 1867 ^, as thus told by the awards,^ may be summarized as follows, reference being had to the number of townships that fall within the respective groups and to the ratio which the areas of the groups bear to the total area of the county (478,112 acres ^). In 89 townships more than three-fourths of the area, exclusive of the waste, was enclosed by parliamentary award during the century in question, and these townships represent 29 per cent of the county's area. In 58 townships, which constitute 22.1 per cent of the county's area, between one-half and three-fourths of the improved area was enclosed. In 28 townships, comprising ' The Mixbury act dates from 1729, and the Crowell award was made in 1882; but all other parliamentary enclosures of arable fields in Oxfordshire fall between the years mentioned. 2 In fifteen instances the information is taken from the petitions for enclosure. With one exception the awards in these cases are neither at Oxford nor at the Public Record Office. • This is the area of the land. The area of land and water is 480,687 acres. 114 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 12.6 per cent of the county, the arable or meadow affected was between one-fourth and one-half of the respective areas. In i6 townships the fraction sank to less than one-fourth, the town- ships themselves amounting to 7.55 per cent of the county. For 28.7s P^"" '^^'^t of Oxfordshire there is no record of parliamentary enclosure. The townships that fall within the respective groups are indicated on the acconipanying plan. (See next page.) Stated more synthetically, the total amount of open-field arable which the tables show to have been enclosed by act of parliament was 193,781 acres, or 40.53 per cent of the entire county. These figures somewhat overestimate the actual amount, since, as has been noticed, the character of the awards has at times made it impossible to separate arable from waste. Probably the above percentage should be reduced to about 37 per cent. The differ- ence should be added to the percentage which represents the unimproved waste, and which our tables, most defective at this point, show to have been at least 5.83 per cent of the county's area (27,862 acres out of 478,112). Our estimate of the unim- proved lands in the county in 1750 thus assigns to them about 9 per cent of its entire surface. After deducting the open-field arable and the unenclosed com- mons, we are left with the old enclosures. According to the estimates of the tables these amounted to 256,469 acres, or 53.61 per cent of the county. As was stated above, from townships which represent 28.75 P^r cent of the county there is no record of parliamentary action; the remaining old enclosed lands (24.86 per cent of the county's area) fall within townships some parts of which were enclosed by award. These large percentages im- ply, of course, that the enclosure history of the county prior to 1750 is a matter of no small moment. In what way these old enclosures were brought about, what motives lay behind the proc- ess, to what extent they represented simply an improvement in agriculture, what relation they bore to field systems, — these are subjects that now demand consideration. If we turn to those Oxfordshire townships which enclosed their arable without parUamentary act, we shall be able to get some hints, though not always very accurate information, as to how • Boroughs or Market Towns ^ Townships Enclosed by Act of Parliament, 1758-1864 Blfj^Uor« than three - fourths of the area, exoluBlTeof thenastA, vaenlfected^ ^^^ From one-half to thtee-fourths ** " " '* «' " " « ■< \^0i " one-fourth to one-half " " " " " " " " ■' E?^!?^ Lbbb than one-fourtii " " " " •■ " " " ■* Townships Enclosed without Act of Parliament. D. EnoloBure vaeeffectcdbetveea lQ22uidl770, luuallyb; agreement of the proprietors. H. Residential townehlp estatea, eneloBed before 1622. R. Blverflide townehipB, enoloaed before 1622. F. Forest towsshlpa, enolowd before 162£. Map VI w 6S ^^t' Il6 EXCLISH FIFJLP SYSTEMS this came about.* Formal act and formal enclosure might be altogether obviated if the proprietors of the common fields could agree to keep to their own parcels and renounce the exercise of common rights. This is said to ha\e happened at I'welm, which has never had an independent enclosure award;" but to make such an vmilerstanding possible the open-field parcels must have been to a large extent consolidated. Another method is reported by Arthur Young, who tells of an enclosure de\ised by a single proprietor. " The parish of Clifton," he wrote in 1800. " thirty- nine years ago was allotted b>' Mr. Hucks, being a prixate ar- rangement of his own. Kach farm was encloseil by an outline fence but was not subdixided." ' It was usual, however, to secme for \oluntary agreements some formal sanction; ai\d an interest- ing illustration of this practice, joined with an explanation of how the agreement was brought about, comes from the years when enclosures were authorized b)- parliament. In 178^ a petition was presented to that body asking its sanction for an enclosure which had been accomplished at Uanwell fifteen years before. The method there emplo\etl had been the purchase by the lord of the manor, Sir Charles Cope, of all interests in the open fields except the glebe land and the tithes. iMulosure had then pro- ceeded apace.* Since Hanwcll is the site of a castle and a park, ' I htixc, for example, fouiul 110 icconl of how the [nuish of I'uxhnm ihiho to lie emlosi'tl. .\ iHi\p of 1767, wliicli shows much of it slill o\wn, l\iis been puhlishoil by J. L. G. MowiU, Si.yltai Olil .U(i/>,v of }'n>f;'rlia in Oxfordshirr, (Kfowl, 18S8. ' LconnrU, " Inclosurc of t'ommon I'ifUls," p. lot, n. j. The iiwtircl tor Hcn- sington Is comcriial with (erluiii lands in lOuohn. ' Aj;rhtiUiire of O.yfonhhiri; |i. gi. • See Joiirnat of Ihe House of Commons, petition of 5 I'Vbnmry, 178,^, "Suiting forth, Thivt aboiil tlie Your 1 7(i,S thi- siiiil Sir l'l\iirk's t'ope bfint; then Lord of the Manor of Hanwcll, and siisrd o{ {\w pcrpi'liud .\(l\ tiwsoii lo iho Rec- tor>' and l*ari,-ih Church of Ilnnwcll id'ortsiiid, and hkcwisi- lu-ins seised for Life, or in Koe, or some other llsliile of Inheritance, of llie K'calcst Part of the Lands of tlie said Manor, did purchase to him aiul his Heirs, the l''.states and Interests of the several CVp.vholdcrs, Life, and Leaseholders, and other Proprietors of the Uemain- der of the said Oiien and (.'onnnoii Kields, and other Lands, within the said I'ari&h, in order to the inclosing the same; and Ihe Open and (.'ommon l''ields. Common- able Lands, t'ow I'asliire, Heath, and Waste ('.rounds, within the siUd Manor and Parish of Hanwcll, were thereupon inclosed, and have ever since been held in Severaltv." LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAXD SYSTEM 1 1 J it is natural that most of the township should, as the petition states, have been in the jxBsession of the lord of the manor before the purchases of 1768. Enclosxire by agreement did not necessarily involve the buy- ing out of the tenants. Before the days of parliamentar)' activ- ity the enclosure of open fields in the large parish of Charlburv was made possible by a deed of agreement drawn up in 1715.' It bears fifty-seven signatures with seals, and sets forth that the interested parties are possessed of " several parcells of freehold, leasehold and coppyhold lands h'eing and being in Certain Com- mon fields of Charlburj' af orsaid and commonlj" called or known by the name of the Homefidd lands in which said common fields the owners and occupj-ers of lands therein upon each others Lands there ever\' other yeai have right of common." There- upon it is agreed that '' each party [is] to enclose his or her own parcel or parcells of land in the said Comon fields at his or her own costs and Charges and to enjoy the same soe Inclosed in Se\"eralit}"." This deed may ha^e been enrolled in chanceiy", as Miss Leonard found was the case during the seventeenth centur\- with several similax ones from A-arious parts of England.' It is pretty clear, if we may rely upon the notes written on the glebe terriers, that chancer\- sanction was giA-en to the enclosure of Middleton Stony at almost the same time. Of that parish a terrier records in 1679 that the glebe lay in sixtj-four parcels in the open fields. In 1 701 a second terrier states that " Part of the Glebe Lands . . . was taken out of the common Field about 15 A-ears agoe and In- closd by a generall consent of the inhabitants." Fiaalh^ a terrier of 1716 e^lains that the glebe is " all inclosed and. a Decree in chancer)- for a Rate Tj-the pap'd Anno 1 714 — - all parties con- sulting."" * Thou^ daancery is said to have authorized only the " Rate T>-the."" it is Kkdj- that all matters connected with the aidosure were thus sanctioned. There is no later information about apsa. fidds at Middleton Stony. ' lUs deed is with the dak ot ihe peace at Oxford. ' " Indoeiire of CommoD Fields,'" pp. loS-iio. ' Bodleian, Osnxdsluie .\rchdeacODr>- Papefi. 5. 36, 37. Il8 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS We have still earlier enclosure agreements from Oxfordshire. In 1667 eight proprietors and three commissioners were parties to a deed by which they divided " all the lands lying in the late open and common fields of Finmere." ' To the eight were allotted 1273 acres. In 1662 Thomas Horde, Esq. entered into an agreement with the freeholders and copyholders of Aston and Cote, whereby it was declared " lawful at all times hereafter, as well for the Lord of the Manor ... as for all or any the, tenants and owners of lands in Aston and Cote aforesaid, to inclose all or any their respective arable lands there." The interest of the lord of the manor seems to have been the motive force here, since there is special proviso for his immediate action.'' That the tenants did not fully avail themselves of their privilege is indi- cated by the fact that most of the common arable field remained open until enclosed by act of parliament in 1855. Earliest of the extant Oxfordshire enclosure agreements is one relative to Bletchingdon. In 1622 the lord of the manor, the rector, and the tenants drew up a tripartite indenture declaring that " a general division is now intended to be had and made of all and singular ye messuages lands and Tenements. . . . And also of all . . . the Arable Lands, Meadows, Pastures, Heath, Furzes, Commons, Wastes and Wast groimds hereafter men- tioned . . . and also of and in all and every the Glebe Lands lying dispersed in the fields of Bletchingdon." Thereupon are enumerated and apportioned some 500 acres of open field and 600 acres of " Heath." Rights of common are renounced, and the enclosure history of the township is brought to an end.' ' The deed is with the clerk of the peace, Oxford. It is printed by J. C. Blom- field, History of Finmere, Buckingham, 1887. * The deed of agreement continues: " Mr. Horde may, as soon as he pleaseth, inclose 54 field acres of arable land lying together in the Holiwell field next to the capital messuage in Cote aforesaid, which said 54 acres is as much arable as usually belongs to two yard-lands in Aston and Cote . . . [and he] may inclose as much of Common called Cote Moor . . as the proportion of two yards of common shall amount unto. ..." In other cases he and the tenants are to give in exchange " other lands of as good value as those for which he shall so inclose." J. A. Giles, History of the Parish and Toum of Bampion (2d edition, Bampton, 1848), Supplement, pp. 8-9. ' The indenture is at the Shire Hall, Oxford. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM II9 These illustrations may serve to explain how certain town- ships were getting enclosed during the century which preceded parliamentary activity. No other deeds than those just de- scribed are available, but we are not without clue as to what townships made similar changes. The numerous glebe terriers of the seventeenth century/ usually dated between 1634 and 1689,' show that certain parishes for which there are no parlia- mentary awards were still open when the terriers were drawn up. Of such there are fourteen instances.' Unless awards have been lost, the fourteen townships were enclosed by voluntary agree- ment, in most cases probably during the century which elapsed between the date of the terrier and the beginning of parKamentary enclosure. Since the series of glebe terriers is incomplete and gives no information about several townships which are later found enclosed, still other enclosures than these fourteen and the six described above may have been effected in the same way. Several of these seventeenth-century terriers, however, picture the glebe as already enclosed, a circumstance which brings us to a consideration of those Oxfordshire townships in which enclosure occurred before 1634. We are here in a realm of conjecture, but a few surmises are permissible. In the first place, it will be remembered that certain of the townships which in the parKa- mentary awards had less than one-fourth of their tillable ground in open field lay in the Chiltern region.^ In no Chiltern township was there much open-field arable,* and some of them we shall be prepared to find without indication of any whatever. Such is the case with eight townships on the summits and eastern slopes of the hills.^ These were upland wooded areas, without ' Cf. below, p. 134. ' That for Waterstock is dated 1609. ' Ardley, Broughton Poggs, Comwell, Cuxham (still open in 1767), Elsfield, Emmington, Glympton, Hard wick (near Bicester), Kiddington, Newton Purcell, Rousham, Steeple Barton, Waterstock, Wood Eaton. ' Chakenden, Goring, Ipsden, Rotherfield Greys. ' Four other townships that extend from the Chiltems well into the plain — Shirbum, South Stoke, Watlington, and Whitchurch — had between one-fourth and one-haU of their improved grounds in open field. No other Chiltern town- ship than the eight mentioned had any open field. " Bix, Kidmore, Nettlebed, Nu£5eld, Pishill, Rotherfield Peppard, Swyncombe, Stonor. I20 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS doubt directly enclosed from the forest. Five other early en- closed townships lay in the plain between the hills and the river,' a situation that probably had something to do with the absence of open fields, although two neighboring townships retained such fields until well into the nineteenth century.^ In general, the Chiltems, apart from certain areas near the Thames, are to be looked upon as a forest region in which enclosure was early and probably coincident with improvement from the forest state.' The condition of such of these townships as lay between the hills and the Thames suggests another reason for early enclosure, namely, proximity to a river. Already situations of this kind have been instanced to explain Tudor and Jacobean irregularities in field arrangements. May they not also have been responsible for a further step — the conversion to enclosed pasture of lands obviously fitted for such use ? The three large streams of Oxfordshire are the Thames, the Cherwell, and the Thame. If we run through the list of early enclosed townships,^ we find that no fewer than nineteen of them were meadow townships lying on or near these streams.* Most are of small size, containing from 500 to 1000 acres apiece, a circumstance also conducive to prompt enclosure. There were, of course, many riverside townships which retained open arable fields; but since they were in general larger than the nineteen in question, speedy conver- sion of all their open fields to pasture would have been more difficult. We come finally to a group of townships the early enclosure of which is explained by their history. Each has long been notable as the site of a mediaeval monastery, an ancient manor-house, ' Eye and Dunsden, Henley-on-Thames and Badgemore, Greys, Harpsden, Mapledurham. ' Caversham and Shiplake. ' Except in three or four instances the hamlets near Wychwood forest, unlike those of the Chiltems, had open fields and retained a part of them until the time of parliamentary enclosure. Long Coombe, whose field irregularities have already been noticed (p. 84, above), may have been enclosed early, since no enclosure award is forthcoming. * Langford, Radcot, Bampton, Chimney, Shifford, Lew, Yelford, Begbrook, Binsey, Marston, Cutslow, Gosford, Hampton Gay, Newnham Murren, Monge- well, Chippinghurst, Stadhampton, Albury, Tiddington. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 121 or at least as the residence of a county family. In each, furthermore, there is likely to be an extensive park. Notable residences and parks were, to be sure, frequently found where there was enclosure by act of parliament. In these cases their owners had increased the old enclosed area, but had not succeeded in becoming sole proprietors within the townships in question. What a nobleman or a gentleman of consequence in the sixteenth century, however, considered most desirable as a residence was an entire township. The extensive home manors of the mon- asteries, often provided with well-built dwellings, formed ideal seats for the rising gentry who secured them. As luxurious life in the country became fashionable, each county came to have its large Tudor and Jacobean houses. In Oxfordshire there are thirty-four townships entirely given over to residential estates of this kind. Five are the sites of monastic houses — Bruem, Chilworth, Clattercote, Minster Lovell, Sandford. Seven boast Elizabethan or Jacobean mansions — Chastleton, Cornbury, Fifield, Neithrop, Water Eaton, Weston-on-Green, Yarnton. Elsewhere the houses are of a somewhat later date, but some, hke Blenheim and Nuneham Courtenay, are well known.^ Together the thirty-four constitute 8.4 per cent of the area of the county. Often two of the reasons above given to explain enclosures earher than 1634 apphed to the same parish. Stonor is in the Chiltems and at the same time is the seat of Lord Camoys, with mansion and park; Cornbury Park, Dichley Park, and Wood- stock Park, all notable residential estates, lie within the ancient area of Wychwood forest. At Sandford-on-the-Thames were a preceptory of the Templars and the priory of Littlemore. Just below is Nuneham Park, and above on the bank of the Cherwell is the Jacobean manor-house of Water Eaton. The coincidence of park and stream is natural, since the taste of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries dictated that, if possible, a mansion be built not far from a stretch of water. ' Besides the sites of the five monasteries and the seven Elizabethan or Jaco- bean mansions, the residential townships were and are Adwell, North Aston, Ascot, Attington, Blenheim, Chislehampton, Crowmarch Gifford, Cuddesdon, Coding- ton, Holton, Holwell, Nuneham Courtenay, Little RoUright, ShelsweU, Souldem, Stonor, Thomley, Tusmore, Over Warton, Waterperry, Wheatfield, Wilcote. 122 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS The four general reasons advanced to explain enclosures in Oxfordshire — parHamentary activity, voluntary agreement, situation within a forest area or beside a river, and the existence of an ancient residential estate — have accounted for nearly all the townships within the county. For fifteen, however, no ex- planation is at hand. Most of these are small, a circumstance which in itself favored consoUdation and enclosure.^ In the case of the half-dozen larger ones special causes may have been at work or explanatory data may have disappeared. So far as it is exphcable by two of the foregoing reasons, the achievement of early enclosure was probably a normal develop- ment. A favorable situation beside a river was itself an impetus, and voluntary agreement indicates acquiescent tenants. So far, however, as the desire to form a residential estate was responsible for enclosure, high-handed measures on the part of the lord may not have been absent. In townships where this motive came into play, whether directed toward the absorption of the entire area or affecting only a large part of it,^ investigators should seek for the activity of the sixteenth-century evicting landlord — so far, indeed, as this existed.' If we now return to those townships which in time became the object of parHamentary concern and inquire what agricultural progress they had made before their enclosure, we shall discover that, although in some regions it was negligible, in others it was ' Warpsgrove 334 acres and Easington 295 (both in the flat fertile valley of the Thame), Stowood 593 (formerly extra-parochial, near Beckley), Kensington 603 (adjacent to the borough of Woodstock), Widford 549 (adjacent to Burford and now owned by a single proprietor), Ambrosden 600 (the residential part of a parish which once included Blackthorn and Amcot), Prescote 551 (set off from Cropready), and Nether Worton 733. The township of Studley (951 acres) has been transferred from Bucks, and Little Faringdon (1161 acres) lay in Berks, when its open fields were enclosed in 1788. There remain a half-dozen larger townships for the enclosure of which I have no explanation, — Tetsworth (near Thame) 11 78 acres, Grimsbury (a rural township set off from the old parish of Banbury) 1218, Middle Aston 894, and, in the southwestern uplands, Crawley 11 23 (carved from the old area of the borough of Witney), and Shilton 1596. ^ The existence of a considerable residential es'tate is responsible for the pre- ponderance of enclosures in certain townships which, since they later became the objects of parliamentary award, appear in the last two groups of Appendix IV. ' On the subject, see Gay's " Midland Revolt " and other papers (cf. above, p. II, n. i). LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 23 considerable and had manifested itself as a change of field systems. Although relatively few of the maps that accompany the awards give accurate pictures of the old fields, enough of them do so to illustrate the situation. The plans of the Chiltern townships may, for the time, be disregarded. Since the midland system did not prevail in that region, irregular fields, such as these plans show, were to be expected there. We shall return to them later.^ In the rest of the county, an area once entirely given over to the two- and three-field system, a diversity of field arrangement had arisen between the sixteenth century and the nineteenth. Occasionally an award or a plan shows the two simple old fields bearing the old names. The Kencott award of 1767 quotes the act to the effect that there were " by estimation in the two open common fields, the East field and the West field, about 731 acres." All the allotments at Hook Norton and Southrop in 1774 were in either the Northside field or the Southside field. At Arncott, in 18 16, there were 533 acres in the West field and 555 in the East field. The Taynton award and plan of 1822 have, besides the common, only the two large fields. East and West. These four townships He in the Cotswold uplands, where the two-field system was once almost universal. That only one-half of their arable was cultivated yearly after the middle of the eighteenth century may seem incredible; yet there is nothing in the awards to show that field conditions had changed since the thirteenth century. We have, indeed, found the Charlbury agreement of 17 15 declaring that the owners and occupiers of lands in the open fields " upon each others Lands there every other year have right of common." We have, too, the definite statement of Richard Davis, who made the first report on Oxfordshire to the Board of Agriculture in 1794. " Some open fields," he says, " are in the course of one crop and a fallow, others of two, and a few of three crops and a fallow. In divers uninclosed parishes the same rota- tion prevails over the whole of the open fields; but in others the more homeward or bettermost land is oftener cropped, or some- times cropped every year." ^ > Cf. below, Chapter IX. ' General View of the Agriculture of the County of Oxford (London, 1794), p. 11. 124 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS For the most part, however, the two-field system seems to have disappeared in Oxfordshire before the era of parliamentary en- closure. Arthur Young, who in 1809 made for the Board of Agriculture a second and more elaborate report on agrarian conditions within the county, says nothing about it. Yet he does note the continued employment of the three-field rotation, especially on the rich lands west from Thame,' an observation that is borne out by the enclosure maps. The tithe map of Chal- grove has been reproduced,^ and the same district furnishes several three-field enclosure plans. At Thame itself there were in 1826, besides two very small fields, three large ones called Priest End, West, and Black Ditch, while the same plan shows, in the adjacent hamlet of Morton, fields alike in size named Costall, Horsenden, and Chin Hill. The accuracy of this representation is confirmed by an excellent eighteenth-century map of Morton, the strips of which he in the same three fields, the last being called Little field.' A third township affected by the award of 1826 was Sydenham, whose three equal fields were Upper, Forty, and Lower. Near by, with only one intervening parish, are Lewknor and its hamlet Postcombe, each of them in a plan of 181 5 showing three fields regularly disposed round the village.* Not five miles away is Stoke Tahnage, where in 181 1 the same neat arrangement was to be seen.* Berwick Prior, too, in 1815 re- tained its three fields.* Most striking perhaps of all this group is the township of Crowell, where the enclosure of the arable is the last recorded in Oxfordshire, being delayed until 1882. Yet even at that date Crowell had three open fields, which bore the unassuming old names of Upper, Middle, and Lower. ' Agriculture of Oxfordshire, p. 127, "On the open field near Thame [the rotation is], (i) Fallow, (2) Wheat, (3) Beans on a very fine reddish loamy sand and the crops great ''; p. 123, " On the excellent deap loams between Stoken- church and Tetsworth, (i) Fallow, (2) Wheat, (3) Beans "; p. 13, " Morton field [next Thame] a stiff loam . . . two crops and a fallow "; p. 133, " On the open fields at Baldons the old course, (i) Fallow, (2) Wheat, (3) Barley, oats," etc. 2 Cf. above, p. 20. ' Add. MS. 34551- * The Lewknor fields were Road, Middle, and Sherburn; those of Postcombe were Clay, Little, and North. ' Three equal fields, Westcut, Middle, and Temple Lake. « They were named Marsh, Middle, and Town, and lay compactly to the north- east of the village. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 25 At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were more three-field townships in the region round about Thame than in all the rest of Oxfordshire. Besides those mentioned, Little Mil- ton, Littlemore, Wheatley, Headington, and Islip had each sub- divided three fields into six. A little to the north were Beckley, Piddington, and Bicester Market End, also showing at the some- what earlier date when they were enclosed three fields apiece. In short, if with Oxford as a center a quadrant were to be described from Bicester (fifteen miles to the northeast) toward the east and south, it would include several townships which still, in 1800 or even in 1825, were cultivated in the three-field manner. Since this region was noticeably the last in the county to undergo enclosure, the system seems not to have been wanting in tenacity. Elsewhere in Oxfordshire few traces of the three-field system appear in the parliamentary enclosure awards, except just to the west of Oxford.' What had happened can be read on many pages of Arthur Young's account and verified from the enclosure plans. The change amounted to a substantial improvement in agriculture. Many of the townships had adopted a four-field system,^ with a four-course rotation of crops, the latter in general being (i) fallow, (2) wheat, (3) beans, (4) barley or oats.^ Young's illustrations are for the most part from the regions north and west of Oxford, although he cites Garsington, situated in the district in which we have seen the three-field rotation holding its own. The order of the four courses varied only at Dedding- ton, where it was (i) fallow, (2) wheat, (3) barley, (4) peas or beans. These accounts of four-course tillage are confirmed by the plans and enumerations of the enclosure awards. The region round Oxford is again the one which furnishes most illustrations. At ' There seem to have been three important fields at Eynsham in 1802, six at Ducklington in 1839, ^"d six at Curbridge in 1845. These parishes lay close together, ten or fifteen miles west of Oxford. ' Davis in the quotation given above says '' a few " townships, but the evidence about to be cited seems to show that they were numerous. ' Young, Agriculture of Oxfordshire, pp. 111-130. So at Bampton, Hampton Poyle, Garsington, Tackley, Wood Eaton, Wendlebury, Bicester Kings End, Kid- lington, Kelmscott. 126 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Hampton Poyle, where Young noted a four-course rotation, the award enumerates five fields — Lower, Bletchingdon, Gretting- don, Collet, Friezeman's Well — but the last one was probably small. At Standlake, though several areas are named in the award of 1853, four fields stand out, North, South, Church, and Rickland. At Culham four fields are specified on the plan — North Middle, South Middle, Ham, and Costard — and they are shown to be relatively equal in size. Frequently the divi- sions were no longer called fields, but had come to be known as " quarters." At Hailey, in the parish of Witney, one of the four open-field areas was in 1824 called Home field, but the others were Crowley quarter. Middle quarter, and Witney quarter. At Kingham, on the western edge of the county, the plan, drawn in 1850 and sketched in the cut on the next page,' indi- cates six quarters; but the glebe terrier of 1685 shows that only four of these quarters (Ryeworth, Withcumbe, Brookside, Broad- moor) were at that time important, a fifth not being mentioned and a sixth consisting of " every yeares Land." ^ Division by quarters is particularly characteristic of northern Oxfordshire. This region, which lies round Banbury, is possessed of a fertile soil known as " redland " and adapted to improved cultivation. If but one of Young's illustrations of four-course rotation, that of Deddington, comes from here, the reason is that nearly all townships hereabouts had already been enclosed when he wrote, having been among the first in the county to apply to parliament. Their awards, however, make it clear, by references to field divisions, that four quarters were existent at the time. At Sandford near Tew the old fields. North and South, had seen appear beside them two large " quarters " fully as important, called Down and Beacon. At Wardington in 1762 South field had become South field quarter, and ranked along with Ash, Spelham, and Meerhedge quarters. Near by, the township of Neithrop, a rural division of Banbury, had before 1760 divided its open fields into four quarters — Thoakwell, Lower, Forkham, and Greenhill.3 Seldom was the nomenclature of the old fields ^ The award is at the Shire Hall, Oxford. " Cf. above, p. 92. ' Frequently the relative areas of the quarters cannot be ascertained, since in LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 27 retained, and the names applied to the quarters indicate that the formation of them was recent. In several instances the awards picture nothing so comprehen- sible as a four-fold division; instead of this, furlongs acquire Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Township of Kingham, Oxfordshire, 1860. Churchill Map VII prominence, and are the principal areas of which cognizance is taken.' At Sibford Ferris in 1790 the allotments lay in the early awards the plans take no ?j:count of antecedent conditions and a single large allotment sometimes extended into more than one quarter. At Cropredy, for instance, the total allotment was 1582 acres. To Sir William Boothby, Bart., were assigned, in lieu of 33! yard-lands, 961 acres in Howland quarter, Hackthom quarter, Oxley fields and quarter. Elsewhere a quarter called Heywey frequently appears. ' So, for example, at Drayton near Banbury, Fritwell, Spelsbury, Stonesfield, Little Tew. 128 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS furlongs named Shroudhill, Stonewall, Seven Acres, White Butt, Middle, Beyer, Townsend, Blackland, Longman's Pool, Gore, Bush, Pitch, Church, etc., as weU as in several other areas not called furlongs (e. g., Wagborough, and Long Stone Hill). When large divisions of the arable have become thus obscured, it is natural to find in some townships the nimiber of quarters increasing, since these too may have ceased to retain agrarian significance and may have become largely topographical. At Burford in 1795 they numbered seven, at Dxms Tew in 1794 eight, and at Neat Enstone in 1843 eleven.' The result of disintegra- tion of this kind was often a bewildering array of field names, in which fields, quarters, furlongs, and nondescript patches were indiscriminately mingled.^ At KidKngton in 1815 the allot- ments lay in nine fields, four furlongs, and a half-dozen miscel- laneous areas. At West Chadlington in 1814 the more important open-field areas were Lower field, Lockland quarter. Crosses Quarry quarter, Gardens quarter. Banks quarter, Blackmore Brakes quarter, Cockcroft Stone quarter. Green Benches quarter, BroadSlade quarter, Ashcroft furlong, Cooper's Ash furlong, Standalls Pit furlongs. Quarry furlong. Berry HiU, the Down, Broadslade Mill Hill, Thomwood, Great Lands, and Lone Land Hill. These areas were presvunably grouped in some manner for a regular rotation of crops, but the inability to locate allotments more simply shows that large field divisions had become obsolete. Under such circumstances the grouping of the many quarters and furlongs could, for the sake of improved tillage, be easily changed by decree of the manorial court. How this was done may be illustrated from three court rolls of Great Tew, a town- ship on the edge of the redland district.' The rolls date from the autumns of 1756, 1759, and 1761, nearly a decade before the ' Hull Bush, Abigals, Sturt, Batlodge, White Hill, Windmore Hedge, Whores; Berry Field, Tuly Tree, Tomwell, Whittington, Ridges, Sands, Red Hill, Lands; Hore Stone, Great Stone, Long Lands, Lady Acre, Heythrop, Leazow Hedge, Folly, Crook of the Hedges, Long Weeding, Sheepwalk, Slate Pits. All are called quarters. 2 So at Westcot and Middle Barton, Bloxham, Church Enstone, Iffley, Mil- combe, Swinbrook, Wendlebury, Wigginton. ' P. Vinogradoff, "An Illustration of the Continuity of the Openfield System," Appendix, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1907, xxii, 74-82. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 29 enclosure of the open fields of Great Tew in 1767. The first two are not clear about field divisions or the rotation of crops. The third, dated October, 1761, is specific, enumerating the open fields in eight divisions, as follows: (i) Huckerswell, (2) Between the Hedges, (3) Upper Barnwell, (4) The Lower side of Woodstock way beyond the Brook, (5) Gaily Therns and the old Hill, (6) Park Hill and Great Oxenden, (7) Upper Oxenden, plank pitts, ten Lands . . . Wheat Land, Broad and picked Castors, Hollow- marsh. Hill to Alepath, (8) Alepath to the Great Pool and the West field from Alepath and Woodway Ford. The first of these divisions was to be subject to an eight-course rotation beginning the following spring and observing the following succession: (i) turnips, (2) barley with grass seeds, (3) hay, (4) sheepwalk, (5) oats, (6) fallow, (7) wheat, (8) peas. The second division was to begin the same rotation a year later, the third two years later, and so on throughout the series. Eight presmnably equal divi- sions of the open fields were, in short, arranged for an eight-course rotation of crops. That this arrangement was not new in 1761, but that certain of the areas mentioned were at the earlier dates sown precisely as they would have been had the specified rotation been in force, is suggested by four items in the first two rolls. Thus, in the spring of 1757 Upper Barnwell was destined for spring grain and grass seeds, while Between the Hedges was the clover quarter. Eight years later, as we have seen, the same crops were assigned to these areas. According to the second roll the Upper Oxenden group was in the spring of 1761 to be sown with barley and grass seeds, while Park Hill and Great Oxenden were in 1760 to be " lay'd down with rye grass and clover " (i. e., mowed for hay). The specifications of the third roll were to the effect that the same situations should prevail in the respective divisions eight years later. An eight-course rotation and the subdivision of the open fields into eight parts thus seem to antedate 1756, the date of the first roll, but by how much we cannot say. These arrangements amoimted to the introduction of a second four-course rotation besides the one described by Arthur Yoimg. The normal four-course succession, it will be perceived, appears 130 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS in (5) oats, (6) fallow, (7) wheat, (8) peas. After this came the new rotation, (i) turnips, (2) barley with seeds, (3) grass mowed, (4) grass pastured by sheep. The innovation lay in the direction of turnip and grass cultivation, half of the wheat crop having been replaced by hay, and the sheep being pastured on a sward rather than on fallow ground. Upon the fields the effect of this eight-course arrangement was the formation of small areas, no longer even formally named " quarters." Once, however, Be- tween the Hedges is referred to as the " Clover quarter," and elsewhere we hear of the " Turnip division." If the other town- ships of northern Oxfordshire which in the awards have such confusing field divisions owed them to the same cause, an eight- course rotation of crops or something similar must have been well known at the very time when parHamentary enclosure was beginning. All this, of course, implies marked improvement in open-field agriculture. Although the eight-course rotation may perhaps be looked upon as a special refinement, not widespread, there can be no doubt about the extent and importance of four-field and four-course arrangements. They probably constituted the preva- lent method of open-field cultivation in Oxfordshire in 1750. The enclosure history of the townships in which they prevailed seems, moreover, to warrant a generalization. So long as the three-field system maintained itself intact, landlord and tenants were inclined to rest content and allow the fields to remain open. For this reason the district southeast of Oxford round about Thame, which clung to its three fields until into the nineteenth century, was the last part of the county to undergo enclosure. Where, however, four-field and eight-field husbandry had come to prevail, as they had in the north and west of the county, enclosure was favored. The tenants, aheady in advance of the inhabitants of three-field towliships, were prepared to outstrip them still more. As soon as parliamentary faciUties were offered, acceptance was general; within two or three decades nearly all of the north and west became enclosed. Great Tew itself yielded in 1767, thereby revealing, it would seem, a connection between the eight-course rotation upon its much-divided fields and this LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 13I early enclosure. Elsewhere in the north the complex fields and the four-course rotation with which we have become familiar suggest a similar explanation of the relatively early dates which characterize the enclosure awards of this region.' Having discovered that by the later eighteenth century many Oxfordshire townships of the northwest had discarded the two- field husbandry once practiced there, we are led to inquire what period is responsible for this improvement. Such a query in- volves a consideration of seventeenth-century field arrangements. Of these we have, fortunately, a contemporary account which, if not a model of style, is yet instructive. In Robert Plot's Natural History of Oxfordshire, pubUshed in 1677, one chapter treats of the tillage employed on the various soils of the county. Before quoting this, however, it will be helpful to note the characteristics and boundaries of the soils themselves. Arthur Young's description is best.^ According to him, the fertile " redland " of the northern townships near Banbury is one of the best soils of the midlands. It extends over the wedge- shaped area that protrudes between Warwickshire and North- amptonshire, and constitutes about one-sixth of the entire county. South of it there stretches from the Cotswolds eastward to Buckinghamshire a broad belt of less desirable soil, for the most part a limestone and known as " stonebrach." Its southern boundary runs from Witney to Bicester, and it comprises a third of the county. South of this again is a belt of miscellaneous loams including the valleys of the Thames, the lower Cherwell, and the Thame. This constitutes another third of the county, reaching to the Chilterns on the southeast. The latter, one-sixth of the county, have a chalky soil, not ill adapted to certain crops. Following these divisions, which he too recognizes, Plot begins his description with an account of the tillage of clay soils, most numerous in the north. It will be seen that he has primarily in mind a four-course rotation of crops, precisely that described by Young one hundred and thirty years later: — " And first of Clay, Which if kind for Wheat, as most of it is, hath its first tillage about the beginning of May; or as soon as 1 Cf. Appendix IV. ' Agriculture of Oxfordshire, p. 3. 132 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Barly Season is over, and is called the Fallow, which they som- times make by a casting tilth, i. e. beginning at the out sides of the Lands, and laying the Earths from the ridge at the top. After this, some short time before the second tilth, which they call stirring, which is usually performed about the latter end of June, or beginning of July, they give this Land its manure; which if Horse-dung or Sheeps-dung, or any other from the Home-stall, or from the Mixen in the Field, is brought and spread on the Land just before this second ploughing: But if it he folded (which is an excellent manure for this Land, and seldom fails sending a Crop accordingly if the Land be in tillage) they do it either in Winter before the fallow, or in Summer after it is fallowed. . . . " After it is thus prepared, they sow it with Wheat, which is its proper grain . . . and the next year after (it being accounted advantagious in all tillage to change the grain) with Beans; and then ploughing in the bean-brush at All-Saints, the next year with Barly . . . ; and then the fourth year it lies fallow, when they give it Summer tilth again, and sow it with Winter Com as before. But at most places where their Land is cast into three Fields, it lies fallow in course every third year, and is sown but two; the first with Wheat, if the Land be good, but if mean with Miscel- lan, and the other with Barly and Pulse promiscuously. And at some places where it lies out of their hitching, i. e. their Land for Pulse, they sow it but every second year, and there usually two Crops Wheat, and the third Barly, always being careful to lay it up by ridging against winter; Clay Lands requiring to be kept high, and to lie warm and dry, still allowing for Wheat and Bar- ly three plowings, and somtimes four, but for other grains seldom more than one. . . . " As for the Chalk-lands of the Chiltem-hills . . . when de- signed for Wheat, which is but seldom, they give it the same til- lage with Clay, only laying it in four or six furrow'd Lands, and soiling it with the best mould . . . and so for common Barly and winter Vetches, with which it is much more frequently sown, these being foimd the more suitable grains. But if it be of that poorest sort they call white-land, nothing is so proper as ray- grass mixt with Non-such, or Melilot Trefoil. . . . LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 33 " If Red-land, whereof there are some quantities in the North and West of Oxford-shire, it must have its tillage as soon in the year as possibly may be, before the clay. . . . This never re- quires a double stirring. . . . Nor is the Sheep-fold amiss either Winter or Sununer. . . . This Land, like clay, bears wheat, miscellan, barly, and peas, in their order very well, and Kes fallow every other year, where it falls out of their hitch- ing. . . . " In some parts of the County they have another sort of Land they call Stone-brash, consisting of a light lean Earth and a small Rubble-stone, or else of that and sour ground mixt to- gether. . . . These Lands will also bear Wheat and Miscellan indififerently well in a kind year, but not so weU as clay, sour- ground, or red-land; but they bear a fine round barly and thin skin'd, especially if they be kept in heart: They lie every other year fallow (as other Lands) except where they fall among the Peas quarter, and there after Peas they are sown with Barly, and he but once in four years. . . . " There is a sort of tillage they somtimes use on these Lands in the spring time, which they call streak-fallowing; the manner is, to plough one furrow and leave one, so that the Land is but half of it ploughed, each ploughed furrow lying on that which is not so: when it is stirred it is then clean ploughed, and laid so smooth, that it will come at sowing time to be as plain as before. . . . " Lastly, their sandy and gravelly Ught ground, has also much the same tillage for wheat and barly, as clay, etc., only they require many times but two ploughings. ... Its most agree- able grains are, white, red, and mixt Lammas wheats, and miscel- lan, i. e. wheat and rye together, and then after a years fallow, common or rathe-ripe barly: so that it generally lies still every other year, it being unfit for hitching, i. e. Beans and Peas, though they somtimes sow it with winter Vetches." ' This account makes it clear that in 1677 a four-course, a three- course, and a two-course rotation of crops were in use in different townships of Oxfordshire. The relation between the four-course ' Robert Plot, Natural History of Oxfordshire (Oxford, 1677), pp. 239-244. 134 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS and two-course rotations also becomes apparent: the old two- field townships had subdivided their fields and had begun to sow one-half the former fallow field with pulse, i. e., with peas, beans, or vetches. This procedure came to be known as " hitching " the field. A township which remained in two fields practiced little or no " hitching," and even in four-field townships certain poorer lands sometimes " fell without the hitching," i. e., were not sown in the pulse year. The particular rotation (wheat, beans, barley, fallow), always recounted by Young, is thus ex- plained. It was the natural outcome of sowing one-half of the fallow field of a two-field township. Thus prepared by Plot's account, we may turn to such descrip- tions of seventeenth-century fields in Oxfordshire as are available. Happily, there exists for this county, as for many others, a series of glebe terriers, a single parish often furnishing two or three such documents.^ The dates range from 1601 to 1685, with occasionally a terrier for the sixteenth century and many from the early eighteenth. Most frequently they are dated about 1634 or 1685. Since some parishes do not appear and many terriers are not easy to interpret, no complete classification for the county can be attempted. Yet even an incomplete series shows in a general way the field usages most in favor in Stuart days.^ In fourteen parishes, the glebe is said to have consisted of crofts.' Six of these lay in the Chiltem region, and several of the others were riverside or residential townships. Many terriers, however, picture the original two or three open fields. Seventeen townships retained the two-field system, the field names being for the most part such primitive ones as East and ' The Oxfordshire terriers have been gathered into one volume, now in the Bodleian (Oxfordshire Archdeaconry Papers, i). A second voltune contains the Berkshire series. Terriers for other counties are usually to be found in the archives of the diocese within which the county lay. 2 In Appendix II, under " Oxfordshire," the description of the glebe as it lay in two-, three-, or four-field townships is summarized. » Bix, Caversham, Harpsden, Ibston, Rotherfield Greys, Rotherfield Peppard (all in the Chiltems); Begbrook, Bletchingdon, Broughton (near Banbury, the glebe being enclosed c. 1700), Goddington, Lillingston Lovell, Minster Lovell, Pirton, Over Worton. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 35 West, North and South. All were in the north and west of the county. In them the abandonment of two-field agriculture seems to have occurred between the period of the terriers and that of the awards, since only Kencott is known to have retained its two fields until 1767. Three were enclosed without act of parliament, we know not how.' For several the parliamentary awards give no field detail, most of them being of early date.^ In three instances, however, we discover from the awards that the old two fields of the terriers had disintegrated before enclosure. At Asthall the plan of 1814 bears the names of many small fields, six at least; at Duns Tew in 1794 there were six quarters; at Tackley the references in 1773 are to furlongs and quarters only. Had the awards which contain no field detail been as specific as these three, they would probably have disclosed a similar situa- tion, and have made it quite clear that the definite abandonment of the primitive agriculture by even the least enterprising of two- field townships occurred between the middle of the seventeenth century and the middle of the eighteenth. Several glebe terriers, of course, picture the continuance of the three-field system, the point of interest here being the location of the townships. All are near Oxford, mainly to the east, but partly to the west near the Thames, the region which we have already seen characterized by three fields in the nineteenth cen- tury. It was not there that agricultural advance was to be expected. For evidence of such progress we turn to eight of the terriers dated about 1680.^ In them the division of the arable into four quarters, later to become so frequent, is already apparent, and they illustrate the four-field arrangements which Plot, writing in 1677, had in mind. AU are from the northern part of the county.* Certain other terriers for townships of the northwest have not this neat quadripartite division of the glebe, but in them also ' Ardley, Broughton Poggs, Glympton. The enclosure of Middleton Stony has been explamed from the glebe terriers themselves (see p. 117). 2 Alkerton (1777), Alvescot (1797), Steeple Aston (1767), Brize Norton (1776), Cottisford (1854), West Shutford (1766), WestweU (1778). ' Cf. Appendix II, pp. 493-494. * The case of Kingham has already been cited and illustrated (above, p. 126). 136 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS acres are apportioned in such manner as to indicate that a two- or three-field arrangement was no longer satisfactory.' Where there are four quarters or fields, the names of these are curious and local, obviously of recent origin. At Somerton in 1634 pre- cise designations had not yet been adopted, it being necessary to call the fields second, third, fourth, and to locate them with reference to highways; ^ but at least it is clear that four-field arrangements were known to Oxfordshii*e early in the seventeenth century. This fact, taken with the testimony of the preceding chapter, seems to warrant the generahzation that a four-field system, mak- ing its appearance in the English midlands during the sixteenth century and the early seventeenth, was employed more and more in the course of the latter century and in the early eight- eenth. This transformation marks the second important stage in the development of open-field husbandry in the midlands. The first occurred when, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, three fields were substituted for two in many regions, among others in eastern Oxfordshire. Elsewhere, as in northwestern Oxfordshire, no change then took place, the primitive two-field system remaining intact. These two-field regions, however, were those which, in this second period of development, ceased to be dormant.' No longer did they allow one-half of the arable to lie fallow each year, but they reduced the fraction to one-fourth. Not content with this, they sometimes went farther, introducing an elaborate rotation of crops and a complicated field system in natural approach to the still more scientific principles em- • Steeple Barton 1685, Charlbury 1635 (c£. the enclosure of 1715, above, p. 117), Churchill 1722, Comwell 1614, Heyford ad Pontem 1679, Kidlington 1634, Swer- ford 1 614, Wood Eaton 1685. ^ So early as 1622 there is evidence in the indenture that records the partition of the open fields of Bletchingdon (Cf. above, p. 118) of four small quarters beside a much larger West field. • Other two-field regions underwent the same transformation as northwestern Oxfordshire. The surveys of Welford, Gloucestershire, and Owston, Lincolnshire, have already been described to illustrate four-field townships. Similarly in four fields at the time of their enclosure were, for example. East Hanney, Berkshire (C. P. Recov. Ro., 49 Geo. Ill, Hil.), Massingham, Lincolnshire (ibid., 45 Geo. Ill, Mich.), Green's Norton, Northamptonshire (ibid., 47 Geo. Ill, Trin.). LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM I37 bodied in the practice of convertible husbandry upon enclosed lands. To the adoption of these principles they speedily came as soon as parhamentary enclosure offered facilities. For among other things which the Oxfordshire evidence has illustrated is the cir- cumstance that townships which had four or more fields were the most prompt to get enclosure awards passed. By the end of the eighteenth century there was little open field left in the northwestern part of the county. Not so, however, with the region southeast of Oxford. In this stronghold of three fields enclosure was long delayed. Whether throughout midland Eng- land in general the three-field system acted similarly as a pro- tective shell for the preservation of open-field arable cannot be determined without further investigation.' Our study of Oxfordshire, which may end here, should have served to illustrate various aspects of the decay of the two- and three-field system. As to those townships of the coimty whose en- closure antedated parliamentary activity, a perception that most of them were situated in forest areas or along streams, or were desirable as residential estates, will perhaps serve to explain con- siderable early enclosing activity. Further, the achievement of this step by voluntary agreement has been instanced in order to indicate the legal methods first employed. In the case of townships enclosed by act of parliament, the awards have enabled us to discover what fraction of the county stiU re- mained open arable field up to the time when this finally dis- appeared. The awards, too, assisted by glebe terriers, have disclosed what transformations the two- and three-field system had undergone since the days of its earlier simplicity. Only in one part of the county, it appears, and that the section given over ' To judge from the dates of the acts for enclosure, certain of the old two-field counties — Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire — were prompt to avail themselves of the new facilities, while ancient three-field counties, like Bedford- shire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, long remained indifferent. But there are enough apparent exceptions to make one hesitate to generalize. Hampshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, all three-field counties, inclined early to parliamentary enclosure, while Berkshire, once tworfield, showed no haste. Cf. Slater, English Peasantry, Appendix. 138 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS to three-field husbandry, had there been no change since the fourteenth century; and that part, as it happens, was the one least inclined to undertake enclosure. Elsewhere in the old two- field territory a four-field systena, or one still more advanced, had arisen as a testimony to the best efforts of open-field husbandry to achieve efficient agricultural method. For those midland and southern counties in which the two- and three-field system once prevailed there is abundant evidence of its long-continued existence,' and the enclosure history of these counties did not in general differ greatly from that of Oxfordshire. In certain western counties, however, where there were pretty clearly two or three fields at an early time, similar long life was not granted. In the preceding chapter it was pointed out at length that marked irregularitifes in field arrangements had al- ready appeared there in the sixteenth century, and that enclosure was frequently in progress. It remains to inquire how much open field remained to be enclosed by act of parliament. The region in question comprised the forest area which ex- tended over the northern parts of Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire, and Derbyshire. It reached westward and south- ward to include the fertile valleys of the Wye and Severn, passing thence into the low-lying stretches of Somerset. Through- out large parts of the eight counties within this region there was a tendency from the sixteenth century onward to increase the area under pasture. The relatively small extent of the arable left to be affected by parliamentary activity can be roughly gauged from Slater's Ust of acts and areas.'' In the valley of the Severn and in the plain of Somerset several townships procured awards, but the amount of arable enclosed by each award was seldom great. Elsewhere the acts were less numerous. As Slater records them, there were twenty-nine for Herefordshire,' seven ' Slater, English Peasantry, Appendix. ^ Ibid. They are assigned to Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire, and the counties mentioned above. ' English Peasantry, Appendix. His Herefordshire list includes at least three acts that should have been omitted. The Wigmore petition of 1772 distinctly states that it is concerned with 600 acres of " common wood," not with 600 acres of common arable, as Slater has it. The award for Bredwardine (with Dorston), LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 39 for Shropshire, and for the northwestern parts of Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire, and Derbyshire, eleven, six,* five, and five respectively. Since Herefordshire furnishes as many awards as any part of this region, unless it be Somerset, and since it lies well to the west, its open-field history may be relied upon to illustrate conditions and changes within the territory above defined. The contrast with Oxfordshire, whose field transformations we have been following, is marked. Though Herefordshire is the larger county of the two (537,363 vs. 483,614 acres), and not inferior in the extent of its fertile fields, its parliamentary en- closures of arable were not more than 31 in contrast with Oxford- shire's 158. The awards recording them which are preserved and accessible correspond with sixteen of the acts listed by Slater,^ and add five that he does not mention. There are, how- ever, ten petitions and acts which mention common fields but for which the subsequent awards are missing.' In no instance do these petitions or acts give areas, and how much confidence should be put in the mention of common fields in a routine formula, especially when the specification of the common wastes precedes, is uncertain.^ The Bredwardine petition, for example, mentions makes it clear that no arable was in question. At Byford the award allotted only a common, although it provided for the exchange of certain strips of arable. On the other hand, the list omits five townships for which we have awards concerned with the allotment of arable, viz., Wellington, Humber and Stoke Prior, Holmer, Pembridge, and Madley. 1 Kidderminster, Wolverley, Overbury, Ombersley, Alvechurch, Yardley. ' Most of them are at the Shire Hall, Hereford, and I am indebted to J. R. Symonds, Esq., clerk of the peace, for permission to examine them. Of the thirty- four there preserved, fourteen relate to commons only. The Harden award, most important of all, is kept at the village of that name, but there is a copy at the Public Record Office. ' Perhaps some of them are, like the Marden award, to be found in the parishes to which they refer. The townships or parishes with which they are concerned are Bodenham, Shobden, Bishopston and Mansell Lacy, Steepleton, Allesmore, Eardisland, Clehonger, Stretton Grandison, Norton Canon, and Puttenham. * These petitions usually recite " certain Commons, Wastes, Common Fields and Commonable and Open Lands " (Journal of the House of Commons, 31 January, 1811, Eardisland). When arable is prominent the phrase runs, "several Open Fields, Meadows, and Pastures " (petition for the enclosure of Tarrington, ibid., 9 February, 1796). 140 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Date of Open Arable No. of Meadow Waste Award Township Field Enclosed Parcels Enclosed' Enclosed 1779 Winforton [379]' 1797 Much Marcle c. 622 J 2 304 1797 Wellington 611 38 72 1799 Tarrington 378 7S 1803 1 Leintwardine Burrington, Aston, Elton, Marlow' 252 1902J Yarkill Stoke Edith 1804 West Hide Weston Beggard i2i6i< 193 1806 Castle Frome 183 146' 7 1812 Kingston 197 1816 MOTdiford 2S8J ... 48i 191 1816 Ledbury / 29J li32« 107 1816 Estnor 54 91 1817 Aymestry Marden, Sutton St. Michael C. 302§ ' 1819 Sutton St. Nicholas, Withington, Amberley, Preston Wynn 2371 1017 250 1826 Much Cowame 536 10 1829 Lingen 78I 543 I8S4 Bosbury 81J 108 24 i8Ss{ Humber Stoke Prior 149 S7 109 SI i8SS Holmer 297 259 1856 Ullingswick 290§ 488 1862 Pembridge ' 73J 82 1862 Pipe and Lyde rsh 16 1863 Madley 381^ 298 IS39 8S6SJ 3477i 1 This is enclosed land over which certain persons had rights of common. » Probably some of this area was waste. s Of the open field 53 acres, of the waste 1201 acres, lay in these four townships. * Of the open field 398 acres were in Yarkill and 138$ acres in Stoke Edith, but there is no informa- tion as to how the remainder was divided among the townships. <^ A small part of the meadow is in Bishops Frome, Much Cowarne, and Evesbatch. ' " Recently inclosed from the open field," and still in strips on the plan. ' Some of this may have been common waste. It was divided among the four townships of Upper Ley, Nether Ley, Covenhope, and Shirley. B Manley field and Manley Lower field, in the parish of Pembridge. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM I4I " common fields," but the award shows that only certain " hills " and " heaths " were in question. Although some of the ten miss- ing awards were probably not dissimilar, it will be safe to assume that at least a small amount of arable was allotted by them. The results of an examination of all the available Herefordshire awards that relate to arable are tabulated in the schedule on the preceding page. The open-field arable and meadow in Herefordshire which the existing awards show to have been enclosed by act of parliament amounted to 10,104^ acres. For the ten missing awards per- haps some 3000 acres more should be added, but at most not more than 2^ per cent of the total area of the county was affected. All this is in marked contrast with the late eighteenth-century situation in Oxfordshire. There the open fields of a dozen town- ships would have equalled in area all the open-field land in Here- fordshire.' There 37 per cent instead of 2^ per cent of the area of the entire county was still unenclosed arable. The foregoing fist also makes it clear that the open arable fields in any township were not extensive. Those of the Harden award, which seem largest, belonged to several hamlets, and the second large area, that assigned to Yarkhill, was apportioned among at least four townships. In no other place were more than 650 acres re-allotted, while 200 to 300 acres was a usual amount, which in turn often had to be divided among the constituent townships of a parish. The Aymestrey award of 1817 appor- tions its open field, already small, among four such townships, and compares these areas with the far more extensive old enclosures. In both respects it is typical of Herefordshire conditions: — Township Shirley Upper Ley Nether Ley Covenhope 302i 2022 ' J. Clark, who in 1794 published a General View of the Agriculture of the County of Hereford, says parenthetically (Appendix, p. i), " since a great part of the county Open and Com- mon Fields and Waste Lands Old Enclosures Acres Acres i3i 252 93 37Si i8ii 7i8i I4i 676 142 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Where nineteenth-century open fields thus constituted so small a fraction of the total improved land of a township we should like to know about their appearance. Such information might assist in determining whether they had originally been limited in extent, or whether they had in course of time decreased in area and, if so, in what manner. The aspect of the fields may, in short, explain why they were so diminutive when enclosed. In this way it may become clear why Herefordshire had only one- fifteenth as much open field for the parliamentary encloser as had Oxfordshire. The enclosure plans of Oxfordshire townships usually reveal the open fields as large compact blocks of arable lying near the village and often surrounding it. The plan of Chalgrove, which has been reproduced, is in no way exceptional. Often, as there, two or three enclosed farms lay in remote parts of the township. Sometimes enclosures had severed the open fields into two or three parts, but the parts at least remained large compact blocks. This state of things is precisely what is seldom to be found in the Herefordshire plans. The three-field townships which were once existent in the county, and which must have had fields that were more or less compact, had clearly survived in not more than four or five places.' One of these survivals was at Sutton, where 700 acres were allotted by the Harden award of 1819. The three fields, bear- ing the becomingly simple names of Upper, Middle, and Lower, would have graced any Oxfordshire township. They lay just to the east of the village, were nearly equal in size, and, except for a strip of old enclosure between two of them and a patch of the same in the third, formed a compact arable area. This plan is one of the few bits of evidence looking toward the long- continued existence of a three-field system in the county. still remains in this state," i. e., common field. The vagueness and the incidental character of the remark render it unworthy of much attention, especially since the report in general is unsatisfactory. ' Yet the rotation in 1794 was a three-course one, according to the reporter to the Board of Agriculture: "In all the common fields and in that district called Wheatland the rotation is (i) fallow, (2) wheat, (3) beans " (Clark, General View, etc., p. 18). LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 43 Another apparent survival of three fields, only a little less con- vincing than the one at Sutton, was to be seen at Ullingswick as late as 1856, when 290 acres distributed in 488 parcels were enclosed. The land lay at a little distance from the village, sur- rounding it on three sides in three rather large compact areas called Wood field, Broomhill field, and Bebbury field. Between each two was a tongue of enclosures, and all three fields show jagged edges where closes had eaten in. Still, on the surface at least this is a recognizable survival of a three-field township. A parliamentary enclosure which, for Herefordshire, was both large and early occurred at Wellington in 1797. We learn the names and areas of the common fields in which the 611 acres of arable lay, but no plan tells us of their shape or location. Con- jecture may none the less be based on the schedule, which runs as follows : — Acres Acres Orrington field 77 North field 87? West field 168 Hope field i4of Hither Adzor field S7i Mill furrows 5 Farther Adzor field 26J Moor Croft 7f Thatchley Lands field ... 41 The important fields here were West, North, and Hope (simple names) while the other fields, Orrington, Adzor, and Thatchley Lands, could easily have adapted themselves to a tripartite arrangement. Nor does the Tarrington schedule of 1799 forbid a three-field grouping. Its 378 acres of arable lay, except for five small patches, in seven areas. To be sure, only three of the latter, and these not the largest, are called fields; yet, if " Radlow " be accounted a field and two of the so-called fields be combined, a grouping into three equal areas becomes possible.^ Only one other enclosure schedule hints at three ancient fields, and that rather vaguely. In the Kingston award of 1812, 197 acres are allotted, of which 116 lay in Brooke field, 64 in Chrise field, and 17 in Kipperley field. The last two areas were adjacent, but were somewhat separated from Brooke field. The three were situated relative to the village much as three fields would have ' Radlow 113 acres, Lower Field 93, Church Hill 36, Long Croft 17, East Field 55, Mickle Field 25, Willsill 22, five small parcels 17. 144 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS been, but Kipperley field was so shrunken that we cannot base any argument upon the Kingston situation. Since the parlia- mentary plans and schedules of only these five townships suggest the survival of three compact, open, arable fields in Hereford- shire, we may now give attention to a marked change which most of such records portray. It will be remembered that one of the townships in which three fields were seemingly intact in the sixteenth century was Risbury, Skotoli of the EnoloBure Map o( tlio Blsbury Division of Stoko Prior, Herefordshire. 18CS. Annn Ftold MuntnnFlold Map VIII a member of Stoke Prior. Fortunately, the enclosure award of Stoke Prior is accompanied by two carefully-drawn plans that locate the arable area which is to be enclosed, indicating the open-field strips and giving the names of the fields. These plans are far more representative of the condition of Herefordshire common fields at the end of the eighteenth century than are the accounts of the more compact three-field areas already noticed. One of them relates to fields lying in the parish of Humber, the other to fields in the Risbury division of Stoke Prior. The Hum- LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 45 ber fields were connected with the two hamlets of Priddleton and Puddlestone. Priddleton field, so called, was an isolated patch containing some ten acres in seven parcels; the Puddlestone par- cels were perhaps four times as numerous and lay largely in Sparrow Hill field, though a Fair Mile field is mentioned.^ More comprehensive is the plan of the Risbury division. As the preceding sketch shows, the strips there were scattered throughout three rather extensive fields called Mear, Mustine, and Anna, while at one edge they ran into Philtor field.^ They numbered about one hundred, and their area was about 150 acres. The aspect of the important fields (the three called in the Jaco- bean survey Meer, Mustine, and Inn field') as they reappear here illustrates what had been happening in the interim of two and a half centuries. From the plan, which looks more Kke the terrier of a single estate than the representation of township fields, the one thing obvious is that enclosure had been eating into the old commonable areas on all sides. Much enclosing had taken place in the middle of the fields, until of the trio there remained only skeletons to which the old names could be appended. Any three- course tillage must long since have disappeared, and the isolated strips must have become a source of annoyance to their propri- etors, who numbered a dozen or more. So important was this process of piecemeal enclosure in bring- ing about the decline of Herefordshire open fields that another illustration may be permissible, especially as it also exemplifies ■an aspect of the field system of the coxmty which first became clear in our examination of Jacobean surveys — the multiplicity of the fields.* A plan of the common fields of Holmer, sketched in the accompanying cut, pictures them as lying in two groups, one to the northeast, the other to the southwest, of the village.' To the northeastern group were attached nine names, — Hill field, Patch Hill field, Munstone field, the Butts, Stoney furlong, * The total area of this group of strips was 58 acres. 2 The plan is at the Shire Hall, Hereford. ' Cf. above, p. 37. * See above, pp. 93-94. * The plan is at the Shire Hall, Hereford. 146 ENGUSH FIELD SYSTEMS Churchway field, Hopyaxd Piece, Ten Acres, and Pinacres, — while the southwestern group comprised West field, Lower West field, Rotherway field. Moor field. Crow Hill, Bobble Stock, and Sickman's field. Quite apart from the odd pieces, such as Bobble Stock, these subdivisions were numerous for an area of 297 acres. Four areas in one group and five in the other are distinctly called fields, the average size of a field being thus not more than 25 or Sketob of the Enolosure Map ot Holmor. Horofordslilre. 16S& Moor Flold Map IX 30 acres. Enclosure had, to be sure, wasted them, as at Risbury; but they can never have been very large. Either early fields had been much subdivided, or the system was irregular, as it so often showed itself in Jacobean surveys. In many of the Herefordshire awards a multiplicity of fields, like that shown in the Holmer plan, is a striking feature. At Marden, a parish of many hamlets, some 1000 acres were en- closed in 1 819. These lay in forty-six fields and patches, several of them being small plocks or crofts. Most of the fields contained from three to forty acres each, though in eight instances the Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Parish of Marden, Herefordshire. 1SI9. Map X 148 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS acreage rose above 40 and once reached 125.' These fields, but not the strips of which they were composed, are located on a plan which is here sketched, and were, it becomes evident, distributed Uke islands throughout the entire area of the parish. At an earlier day they probably had some logical grouping relative to the half- dozen hamlets of which the parish was composed, but this is no longer discernible. Indeed, it will be remembered that the Jaco- bean survey showed tenants acquiring acres from the fields of the various hamlets.^ By 1819 enclosure had broken the edges, of the fields, separating them more and more from one another and sometimes, as in the case of South field, nearly obliterating them. When one considers that this is the parish which in all Herefordshire retained the largest area of open field at the time of its enclosure, one readily surmises that multipKdty of fields and piecemeal enclosing were signs of decay from which the staunchest townships in the county had seldom been exempt. To multiply illustrations of numerous fields is easy. The 564 acres enclosed at Much Cowame lay in some thirteen fields, apart Acres 1 Little Horn Field s South Field Croft s South Field lOj Hawthorn Hill Field 135 The Twenty Acres 13 Portland Head 11 Butchers Plock 4 Upper Vauld Field 25 Apothecary's Croft si Ashgrove Field 88 Pale Croft 9 Meggs Corner 4 Venn Field 7 Venn Field Croft 7 Lower Vauld Field 12J Greathome Pasture 3 Chestem Field 3 Sinacre Field 38 Bush Field 32 Lingens Hook i Burling Field 52 Lower Brierly Hill Field .. . 10 Carry Lane Croft sh ^ Cf. above, pp. gs~9^- Acres Hill Field Crofts 4 HiU Field 35 Upper Brierly Hill 13 Roads Orchard 3 J Kineton Field io| Little Field 7 Ninewells Field 3 Venns Green Pasture .... 2 Holbach Field 50 NashhiU Field 49 Overways Field 102 Hare Furlong 4 Little Field near Paradise 2^ Odditch Field 63i Holbach Plock 2 Little WaU Field 16 Great WaU Field 47I Lower Wall Field 39^ Gott WaU Field 33 Mill Croft Field 5 School Wall Field 11 Newfoundland Field 7 Lake Field 125 LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 49 from many smaller areas.' At Madley the field names applied to 381 acres numbered thirty, while at Much Marcle as many as forty were required to locate 622 acres. The Yarkhill award, which, to be sure, makes allotments in other townships as well as in Yarkhill, avails itself of thirty-eight such names. Instances like these show how typical are the descriptions of Holmer and Harden. They make it clear that throughout the county the open fields of the era of parliamentary enclosure were for the most part small, numerous, more or less isolated, and consider- ably eaten into by piecemeal enclosures. The relatively small amount of arable enclosed in Herefordshire by act of parUament necessitates one of two explanations regard- ing the earlier history of open common fields there: either they were never extensive, or the majority of them disappeared with- out special act. In choosing between . these alternatives one should remember that parhamentary activity in the county began late. The first extant award relative to open arable field dates from 1797, and none of the ten missing awards were earlier. By that year parhamentary enclosure in Oxfordshire had run half its course. In view of the fragmentary condition of the Hereford- shire fields when they first appear in the plans and schedules, it is scarcely credible that no enclosing had been going on through- out the preceding fifty years. Since appeal to parliament seems not to have become the vogue until 1797, the natural explanation is that would-be enclosers were getting on very well without it. The simple method of enclosure by agreement, one may surmise, was known and practiced. For such a conjecture we have further justification. In 1779 parhamentary sanction was sought for the aboHtion of common rights over 379 acres of enclosed lands at Winforton.^ The ownership of these closes resided in the lord of the manor, but- thirteen other persons were seized of the rights in question. The meadows were " commonable at midsummer yearly," certain pas- tures at Lammas day, and several arable fields " when rid or » Great field, Wheatland field, Elms field, Quarry field, Walnut Tree field, Claypit field, Twenty Acres, Birley field, Batch field, Henacre, Stream field. Psalters field. Perry field. 2 The award is at the Shire Hall, Hereford. I50 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS cleared of their respective crops of grain and hay." Since these rights were estimated by the award as equivalent to one-fourth of the yearly value of the 379 acres, the claimants were allotted about one-fourth of this area. Obviously we are here dealing with common arable and meadow lands which had been enclosed at some time before 1779 without the extinction of common rights. Agreement there doubtless had been between the lord and the tenants, but no separation of interests. One other parliamentary act relative to a Herefordshire town- ship, said to be the earliest of its kind,' provides for the enclosure of lands at Harden in 1608.^ The reason assigned to justify its passage is that there may be " better provision of meadow and pasture, for necessary maintenance of husbandry and tillage " — the same reason which many sixteenth-century surveys from Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, and Somerset might have ad- vanced to explain the considerable departures from normal open- field tillage which they manifest. This act recognizes and legalizes what was apparently a usual procedure in this region. These two parliamentary sanctions given to enclosure by pri- vate agreement in Herefordshire, standing as they do a century apart, are significant, since they suggest that the process of which many traces can be seen in the later plans had been of long dura- tion. The process was one of piecemeal enclosure by private agreement, and it remains to inquire whether much open-field arable disappeared before it. On this point some light is thrown by the condition, in the time of Henry VIII, of certain hamlets formerly in the possession of Wigmore monastery. For each of them there is a brief survey telling the number of tenants and the areas of their holdings. Nearly always the holdings were largely in open field, the situation, briefly stated, being as follows: ' — ' Leonard, " Inclosure of Common Fields," p. 108. Miss Leonard states that the act enabled the commoners to enclose a third of their lands. 2 " An Act for the better Provision of Meadow and Pasture, for necessary Main- tenance of Husbandry and Tillage, in the Manors, Lordships, and Parishes of Mar- den, alias Mawarden, Bodenham, Wellington, Sutton St. Michaell, Sutton St. Nicholas, Murton upon Lugg, and the Parish of Pipe, and every of them, in the county of Hereford " (Journal of the Bouse of Lords, 12 May, 5 Jas. I). ' Land Rev., M. B. 183, ff. 2-24. The account of the demesnes, which were seldom large, is not transcribed. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 151 . Enclosed Arable Acres in the Common Common Township Messuages Acres Fields Meadow Marlow 4 7I 60, 60, 60, 27 Whitton 6 8f 60,46,21,40,60,38 30J acres Ratlinghope . 8 13 J 30, 10, 22, 14, 24, 22, 10, 36 45 " dayesmath " T =n.™ J ^ '45 f 8 acres Letton j ^ ^^^ 30, S3, 59, 21, 25, 30 \ 2h " Adforton ■[ ^ "^ ^^' ^*' ^*' ^^' '*°' '^' ^'•'5' ^^| ^^ *"*^^ ■ ■ ■ ■ I 1 172 6 1 Sf " Yatton 3 61 26,40,30 4 ■" dayesmath " Lye 4 38J 60, 30 30, 2i In all these townships the open-field arable was far more exten- sive than the enclosures, but, considerable as it was in Tudor days, relatively httle of it remained to be enclosed by act of parliament. Only three of the townships appear in the awards. ' Of these, Marlow and Whitton are in the parish of Leintwardine, the award for which was drawn up in 1803. In it reference is made to Mar- low, where a large common of 392 acres is allotted, but only five acres of common field (in Little Marlow field). To the township of Leintwardine itself is assigned common field amounting to 197 acres. Since the hamlet of Whitton is not more than a mile distant from the village of Leintwardine, a part of the area en- closed probably came from the fields of Whitton; yet such part can have been no very large fraction of the 265 acres which were open arable field there in Tudor days. The third township of the list which appears in the awards is Lye, where in 18 17 an area of 274 acres was enclosed. How much of this was arable is not made clear in the award, nor can it be determined what ratio the four monastic holdings, specified above, bore to the entire township; but, even if it be assumed that they remained un- enclosed, the total open-field arable and meadow affected by act of parhament in the seven townships of the foregoing Ust did not exceed 300 acres. Since in Tudor days they had contained upwards of 1200 acres, the area enclosed without parHamentary intervention was about 75 per cent of the total. This fraction may not, of course, be applicable to the county as a whole. On the other hand, there is no reason for assuming ' Ratlinghope is in Shropshire, but there is no record of its enclosure in the acts or in the enclosure awards at Shrewsbury. 152 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS that the hilly, forested, northwestern comer in which were situ- ated the townships above noted had relatively more open field in Tudor times than had the amiable plains round Hereford. Since the Leintwardine and Lye awards are in their areas entirely representative of parliamentary enclosures in Herefordshire, the fraction which seems to reflect conditions in the northwest may not after all be inapplicable to the entire coimty. At least it becomes probable that a very considerable amoimt of arable open field, once existent, disappeared without leaving record of itself in parliamentary act or award; and one can scarcely avoid the inference that private agreement and piecemeal enclosure were operaitive in this process. At what period between the days of Henry VIII and those of George III the decay of the old fields was most rapid is not easily ascertainable. It cannot have been before the begiiming of the seventeenth century, since the Jacobean surveys show no marked encroachments upon the arable. Surveys later than these are not to be had, though glebe terriers might throw light upon the sub- ject, as they have upon similar matters in Oxfordshire.^ Until information from them or from some other source is forthcoming, the decades during which the old field system fell most rapidly into decrepitude must remain in doubt. Why piecemeal enclosure was so much more prevalent in Here- fordshire than in Oxfordshire can only be conjectured. In general during the sixteenth century the western counties appear to have been much more inclined to pasture farming than were the mid- lands. To judge from the respective values assigned to arable, meadow, and pasture in the contemporary surveys, this preference implies progress. An acre of pasture was usually worth at least half as much again as an acre of arable, and an acre of meadow was easily worth twice as much.^ Conversion of the arable, therefore, meant an increase in values and income. The fact that • I have not been able to examine the glebe terriers for Herefordshire, and do not know to what extent they are available. 2 According to a survey of i Edward VI, the open-field arable at Horton, Gloucestershire, was worth from 6d. to 12 d. the acre, the enclosed pasture from IS. 6d. to 3 s., and the meadow from 3 j. to 5 j. (Rents, and Survs., Portf . 2/46, £F. 92-104). LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 1 53 this advantage, patent in all the surveys, was realized only in the west suggests that conversion may for some reason have been easier there than in the midlands. Thus we are brought back to the conditions described in the preceding chapter. There were disclosed, especially in the forest areas and the river valleys of western England, deviations from the two- and three-field system. Most noticeable of these were such irregularities in field arrangements as made it uncertain whether either a two-course or a three-course rotation of crops was still practiced. If neither was in force, there can have been Kttle reason for maintaining the integrity of the arable fields — unless, indeed, a four-course system was adopted, as happened on the lower Avon. In general in the river valleys, including those of Herefordshire, and near the moors of Somerset, irregular fields, themselves often indicative of progress, must easily have yielded to enclosure. At Frampton Cotterell in Gloucestershire they had done so completely before the days of James I. One other feature of Herefordshire fields must have been favor- able to innovations. This was their relatively small size. As has been noticed, a Herefordshire parish usually consisted of several hamlets,' each with its group of fields in which seldom so ' many as ten tenants had holdings of any size. Frequently the tenants numbered less than a half-dozen. Obviously the situa- tion in a township of this nature was very different from that existing in a township of Oxfordshire, where there were nearly always more than ten tenants and sometimes as many as thirty. From so large a group consent for enclosure could be got only with difficulty, whereas by the half-dozen Herefordshire tenants it might readily be conceded. If this conjecture be justifiable, the form of settlement which prevailed in the western counties had its influence upon the open-field history of the region. ' The parish of Marden is a good illustration. Reference to the modem map shows six constituent hamlets or townships, — Marden, Wisteston, Vem, Venn, Vauld, and Fromanton. The name of the last hamlet is supplied from the Jaco- bean survey, a document which tells us that the manor of Marden comprised also the township of Sutton with its hamlet Freen (cf. above, p 95, n. 4). 154 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS At this point it will be necessary to conclude our study of the two- and three-field system. This method of tillage has been followed from Anglo-Saxon days to the latter part of the nine- teenth century. The area throughout which it prevailed has been defined as the northern and southern midlands — the terri- tory from Durham to the Channel and from the Welsh marches to the fens. In its primitive Anglo-Saxon form the system seems to have been one of two fields. As soon, to be sure, ks we get full evidence from the beginning of the thirteenth century, three- field townships are apparent. The discovery, however, that two- field arrangements sometimes gave place to three-field ones has encouraged the belief that such transformation was perhaps responsible for the existence of the three-field system. The period to be credited with this first step in agricultural advance is the thirteenth century and the early fourteenth. From that time on, all the more fertile townships of the midlands, especially of the northern and western portions, were in three fields. So they remained, it seems, for about two centuries. When the curtain next rises upon midland fields as they appear in the surveys of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, another transformation has begun. Although most townships still re- main in two or three fields, more complex arrangements appear here and there, especially in forest areas and in river valleys. Sometimes strips of meadow have substituted themselves for strips of arable in the otherwise normal fields. Sometimes the division of tenants' acres among fields is incomprehensible, even though the fields are few. Sometimes the fields have become numerous and admit of no grouping which adjusts them to the traditional system. Sometimes much piecemeal enclosure has taken place and the open-field arable is visibly in a state of decay. Very often, finally, a new regular system, one of four fields, has replaced the two-field arrangement, and so has brought into annual tillage an additional quarter of the town- ship's arable. These changes, it is obvious, were evidences at once of the decay of the old system and of an advance in agricultural technique. To study them at closer range we have given attention to the UTliK UrSTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 155 enclosure history of Oxfonlsliire and lierelordsliire. The latter county has shown itself particuhirly notable for tiie extent to which pieei-nieal eiulosuro went (luietly on within its borders, a l)rocedure which seems to have been facilitated by its numerous and small lields. In Oxfordshire it was dilTerent. More than onedialf of the county, to be sure, l)ecanie enclosed before 1750, but tl>e causes of tiiis seem to have been the fertility and residential desirid)i!ity of certain townships. In other townships a greater or less amount o( open arable held survived, the total lonslituting more tiuui one-tiurd of the county's area. This sur- \i\injj; open Held arable had in part un(lerf;;one certain changes, particularly the substitution of four ticlds for two; and the extent of such transformation in Oxfordshire, indeed, su,u;f^ests that it constituted the most important step in systematic agricult- ural advance maiU- by the midland system since the fourteenth century. In conjunction with certain relinements upon itself, it was tlu> last endeavor oi open-lield husbandry io till the soil in tlie most renumerati\e manner possible. In this altcm])t it failed, being unable to etiual the adx'antages olTered by enclosure and con\ertible husbandry. 'i1u'reui)on set in an epoch of parliamentary enclosure which, continuing from the middle of the eighteenth century for ratlier more than a hundred years, left luigland a ctiunlry substantially devoid of open arable lields. The iinigrc-'^s of this late enclosure in ()xfordsl\ire and llerefiirdshire has been followed in order to make clear what material is available for an extentled study of the subject, and t*> emphasi/,e tl>e distinction between those coun- ties in which the twii- anil three-tield system was lirmly en- trenched and those in which it yieliled easily to formal or informal enclosure. The first group comprised the counties of the eastern, central, and southern midlands; the second included counties or parts of counties 1_\ ing to the m>rth ami west in a belt of territory which stretched from l)urhan\ to SiMucrset. In the latter group piecemeal enclosure went on more rapidly thanit did in the former, a circumstance that constitutes the most striking ditTerentiation within the entire two- and three-lield area. Next to it in sug- gestixeness is perhaps the readiness manifested by four-field and 156 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS eight-field townships to avail themselves of the opportunity to enclose their open fields by act of parUament. Behind all the differences, however, which in covirse of time manifested them- selves within the two- and three-field area was the unity of origin and character that marked off the midlands from the other parts of England which are now to be considered. CHAPTER V The Celtic System Befoke examining the field arrangements of the north and the west of England, we shall do well to glance across the border to see what method of cultivation was employed by peoples of Celtic descent. Phenomena otherwise perplexing may thereby become intelligible. Of the three Celtic divisions of the British Isles, Scotland fur- nishes perhaps the most specific information as to how the soil was tilled in the eighteenth century. Among the Scottish re- porters to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 were two or three men whose habits of thought led them to go beyond the formal answer to the queries propoimded and write scholarly accoimts of the situation, past and present. If to their descriptions be added the briefer notes of the other reporters, the composite picture leaves Uttle that is vague about the later history of the Celtic system in Scotland. In partiailar it makes clear the nature of runrig, the relation of which to the three-field system of England has never been well set forth.^ A striking feat;u:e of Scottish agriculture before 1794, and one upon which the reports are practically vmanimous, is that most of the arable, as well as the meadow and pasture, lay imenclosed. Near gentlemen's seats only were enclosures to be seen. While the reporters wrote, the process of enclosing was making headway, especially in the southeast; and often matters had got to a point where a ring fence had been built about the farm, although no 1 Slater has a chapter on the subject, and quotes at length Alexander Carmi- chael's description of the Hebrides (English Peasantry, ch. xv). He has not utilized the best infonnation contained in the reports to the Board of Agriculture, nor is his contrast of runrig with English common fields adequate (cf . below, pp. 1 71-17 2). Seebohm had apparently not read the reports. 158 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS subdivisions had been made. A half-century earlier nearly all of Scotland, they say, lay open.' As a lucid description of the tillage of an open-field Scottish farm, James Anderson's account, written with reference to Aber- deenshire, cannot be excelled:^ — " Throughout the whole district," he writes, " the general practice that has prevailed for time immemorial is to divide the arable lands of each farm into two parts at least, Infield and Outfield. The in-field, as the name implies, is that por- tion of ground which is nearest to the farmstead; and usually consists of about one-fifth part of the whole arable ground in the farm. This is kept in perpetual tillage; and the invariable system of management was, and still is, with few exceptions, to have it divided into three equal parts to be cropped thus: Fifst, ' Cf . the following reports, each entitled General View of the Agriculture of the County [in question] : — Aberdeen, p. 40, " But if by commons be understood uninclosed fields [i. e., not heath or waste] . then the greatest part of the county might be accounted such "; p. 59, " The old com lands near Aberdeen . . [are] for the most part open and uninclosed." Southern Perth, p. 60: " Three-fifths at least of the whole arable land is open . and on some farms no fence is made except a ring fence around the whole." Argyll and West Inverness, p. 26: " There is but little of it [the country] inclosed, and that which is only by feal dykes; the tenants, from want of sufficient inclosures, cannot protect turnip and sown grass and thereby have been discour- aged . . to raise these articles." Annandale (co. Dumfries), app. iv, p. xxiii: " There was scarce an inclosed field thirty years ago in Annandale, imless on the mains or manour place of a gentleman, and they were not at all frequent. There was no such thing at a much later period as a divided or inclosed farm, with any sort of fence, occupied by a farmer." Dumbarton, p. 19: " Till about thirty or forty years ago, none of the country was inclosed, except a few fields adjoining to gentlemen's seats . [but] inclosing has been daily going on. One-third of the county, however, is yet open, or but roundly inclosed; that is, the farms are inclosed, but not subdivided." Berwick, p. 45 : " Almost the whole or two-thirds, at least, of the lands of the lower district, are now inclosed, and a considerable part of the arable lands of the higher district." Orkney Isles, p. 252: " The land is almost wholly in open fields." Midlothian, p. 34: " Even so late as thirty years ago, there was hardly a farm inclosed in the whole county." ' General View of the Agriculture of the County of Aberdeen (Edinburgh, 1794), pp. 54 sq. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 59 Bear [barley], with all the dung made by the beasts housed on the farm laid upon it. Second and third, oats: then bear again; and so on in the same unvarying rotation. [For bear, the earth was turned over upon the stubble in the winter, a process called " tibbing." At the end of April, after harrowing, the dung was spread, the soil lightly ploughed, and the crop sown.] For oats the ground is ploughed as soon after the grain is cut down as possible; often some parts of the ridges are ploughed the day the corn is cut down. ... It is impossible to form an idea of the foulness of the crop. ... It is by no means uncommon to see one-half the ridge (usually that side which lies to the east or north) cut up for green food that year it is in bear, no grain being to be seen among it. . " That part of the farm called out-field is divided into two unequal portions. The smallest, usually about one-third part, is called folds, provincially folds; the other larger portion is At- i\.ora.ma.tti. faughs. The fold ground usually consists of ten divi- sions, one of which each year is brought into tillage from grass. With this intent it is surrounded with a wall of sod the last year it is to remain in grass, which forms a temporary inclosure that is employed as a penn for confining the cattle during the night time and for two or three hours each day at noon. It thus gets a tolerably full dunging, after which it is plowed up for oats during the winter. In the same manner it is plowed successively for oats for four or five years, or as long as it will carry any crop worth reaping. It is then abandoned for five or six years, during which time it gets by degrees a sward of poor grass, when it is again subjected to the same rotation. " The faughs never receive manure of any sort; and they are cropped in exactly the same manner as the folds, with this differ- ence, that instead of being folded upon, they are broke up from grass by what they call a rib-plowing about midsummer; one part of the sward being turned by the plow upon the surface of an equal portion that is not raised, so as to be covered by the furrow. This operation on grass land is called faughing, from whence the division of the farm takes its name. It is allowed to he in this state until autumn, when it is plowed all over . . . l6o ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS and is sown with oats in the spring. It produces a poor crop and three or four succeeding crops still poorer and poorer; till at last they are forced to abandon it by the plough after it will scarcely return the seed. It is deplorable to think that . . . such a barbarous system . . . should have been, from local circumstances, continued for several centuries." From every part of Scotland come similar accounts of the division between infield and outfield. The variations in detail are slight, having reference largely to the rotation of crops and to the proportions existing between the various sorts of land. No other report makes a distinction between folds and faughs, the entire outfield being usually described as Anderson describes the folds. In East Lothian the outfield was divided into five, six, or seven brakes (instead of ten folds and ten faughs), the number depending upon the quality of the soil.^ In Ayrshire " no dung was ever spread upon any part of it. The starved cattle kept on the farm were suffered to poach the fields from the end of Harvest till the ensuing seedtime." ^ Contrasted with the out- field was the infield, which in Dumbarton comprised about one- fourth of the farm.' Sometimes the rotation of crops upon the infield extended over four years instead of three. In Ayrshire a year of ley intervened between the crop of barley and the two crops of oats.* In the Carse of Gowrie and in East Lothian one-fourth of the infield " was dunged for pease [and] . . . the second crop was wheat, the third barley, the fourth oats." In southern Perthshire, along with the usual rotation, a crop of peas or beans might be introduced between the oats and the barley, or barley and oats might alternate in two-course rotation.* The reporter for Annandale explains what part of a farm the system brought under annual cultivation. The quantity of infield land, he says, " was proportioned to the number of cattle wintered and housed on the farm. An acre of land might be dunged for each five or six cattle. ... A farm that could fold five acres of Outfield land [from which three crops of oats were then taken], and ' East Lothian, p. 48. ' Dumbarton, p. 44. ^ Ayr, p. 9. * Ayr, p. 9. ' Southern Perth, p. 2 2. The introduction of the peas or beans was deemed an improvement. THE CELTIC SYSTEM l6l could manure as many of Infield [from which one crop of barley and two crops of oats were then taken], had in all [each year] twenty-five acres of oats and five acres of bear." ^ In the Highlands the poorer soil introduced sUght modifica- tions. WilKam Marshall's description is in substance as follows.^ The valleys were separated from the hills by a stone fence called the " head dyke," or by an imaginary line or partition answering to it and miming along the brae or slope. Within the head dyke lay the more productive or greener surface, the black heathy brows of the hills being left out as " muir." The muir was an addition to the farm peculiar to the Highlands, since the portion within the head dyke comprised what was elsewhere called infield and outfield. The description of these divisions runs much as usual. Some patches, however, which were " too wet, too woody, or too stoney to be plowed, are," Marshall notes, " termed meadow and are kept perpetually under the scythe and sickle for a scanty supply of hay, being every year shorn to the quick and seldom, if ever, manured." Other patches constituted per- manent pasture. " The faces of the braes, the roots of the hills, the woody or rough stoney wastes of the bottom; with a small plot near the house, termed ' door land ' (for baiting horses upon at meal times, teddering a cow, etc.) are kept as pasture for cattle in summer and sheep in winter, the sheep and generally the horses being kept during sxmimer above the head dyke upon the muir lands." In estimating the average amount of each kind of land on a farm on the sides of Loch Tay, Marshall brings to light the principal difference between the Highland farms and the more level ones, whether of the north or of the south. The farms of Loch Tay, he states, " contain on a par about twenty acres of infield, fifteen acres of outfield [both tilled as elsewhere], ten acres of meadow, thirtyrfive acres of green pasture, with about ten acres of woody waste — in all, about ninety acres within the head dyke, and about two hundred and fifty acres of muir or hiU lands." The infield and outfield which were more or less avail- able for tillage thus constituted only a small fraction of the total 1 Annandale (co. Dumfries), app. iv, p. xxii. 2 Central Highlands of Scotland, pp. 29 sq. 1 62 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS area of the farm, instead of all of it, as elsewhere. Apart from the extensive but not very valuable stretches of permanent muir, pasture, and meadow, a Highland farm was like any other in Scotland. Up to this point in the description Scottish agriculture shows slight resemblance to the two- and three-field system of the Eng- lish midlands. The arable fields were, to be sure, open, and the best of them, the infield, was subject to a three-course rotation; but the three courses involved continuous cropping and knew nothing of the fallow year. With the outfield, the larger part of a Scottish farm, there was nothing in a midland township to correspond, and its alternation of five years of tillage with five years of recovery was far removed from midland methods. We come now, however, to a characteristic of Scottish agriculture which seems to ally it with the common fields of England. This feature is runrig, or rundale, the subdivision of a holding into strips or ridges intermixed with those of other holdings. The existence of ridges has already come to light in Anderson's account, where he refers to the unproductiveness of the northern halves of the ridges of infield during the year in barley. Ridges may, of course, comport with almost any field system in which there is no cross-ploughing. They are a device for drainage, and were commended by the reporters when they were straight, not too high, and so arranged as to drain the furrows properly. In Scotland, as it happened, they had got out of hand, and, accord- ing to the reporter for East Lothian, the following shape of the ridge was universal: " Anciently almost every ridge in this coun- try was from i8 to 22 feet broad and sometimes more; they had curves at each end, somewhat in the form of the letter S; and these ridges were always twice, and upon strong lands generally three times, gathered from the level of the ground." ^ This re- port is confirmed and explained by another from Midlothian: " It was formerly the universal practice to form the land into high and broad ridges, commonly from 36 to 48 feet wide and elevated at least three feet higher in the middle than in the fur- rows; but this mode, which perhaps was consistent enough with • East Lothian, p. 51. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 63 the heavy, cumberous six-horse ploughs then employed, is now disused since the introduction of the two-horse plough, which has of late been general in this county." ' The long ridges were called riggs or dales, the short ones lutts. The riggs contained from one-fourth to one-half of an acre each, the butts less. As in the midland system, headlands were to be found, and the acres were gathered into " shots." All these fea- tures were apparent in 1599, as the following enumeration of six acres, part of a husbandland at Eymouth, Berwickshire, shows : — " One acre containing three rigs lying in that shot called the Schuilbraidis, sometimes occupied by Patrick Huldie, malt- man other three acres, sometime occupied by John Johnstone, mer- chant, of which one is in Over Bairfute, called the Heidland acre, half an acre containing three butts adjacent in the Over Welsteil, half an acre containing two rigs and a rig- end in the Blackcroft, and the other acre containing two daills in the Hilawbank another acre containing two daills and a rig lying on the west side of the said Hilawbank, sometime occupied by Robert Gotthra ... and the other acre, containing three rigs of land, lying in Nather Bairfute." ^ The transition from ridges to runrig is made for us in Sir John Sinclair's disdainful account of Caithness. " In order to prevent any of the soil being carried to the adjoining ridge," he writes, " each individual makes his own ridge as high as possible, and renders the furrow quite bare, so that it produces no crop, while the accumulated soil in the middle of the ridge is never stirred deeper than the plough." Here at length is intermixed owner- ship or occupation; and Sir John leaves the matter in no doubt. " The greater part of the arable land in this County," he con- tinues, " is occupied by small farmers, who possess it in run-rig or in rig and rennal, as it is here termed, similar to the common fields of England, a system peculiarly hostile to improvement. ' Midlothian, p. 55. 2 Hist. MSS. Commission, MSS. of Col. D. M. Home (1902), p. 214. 164 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Were there twenty tenants and as many fields, each tenant would think himself unjustly treated, unless he had a proportionate share in each." ^ Of the Orkneys, too, he writes, " Much land that formerly lay in the state known in Scotland under the name of run-rig land has been divided, but much still remains in the same situation ... a source of constant dispute." ^ At the other end of, Scotland, in Berwickshire, runrig was at least a memory. The reporter notes that " the common fields, runrig, and rundale lands in the coimty were all divided previous to any attempt to improve them by inclosing." ' Certain passing remarks of other reporters indicate more exactly the nature of the intermixed property, and at the same time point to its prevalence throughout Scotland. Most illuminating of all is the report from southern Perthshire by James Robertson, D.D. " The husbandry of the particular district under consideration," says he, " was in a most wretched condition, even so late as fifty years ago. The land was always occupied in run-rigg by the different tenants on the same farm and sometimes by coter- minous heritors. The houses were in clusters for the mutual protection of the inhabitants, and the farms were universally divided into out-field and in-field except in the neighborhood of the larger towns." * The intermixed strips of the several tenants, we now perceive, were those of a single farm, and the method of tillage called runrig had the farm as its unit. Robert- son's further comment makes the matter clearer. Discussing production and population, he uses this illustration: " No man will venture to say, that a farm of fifty acres in the hands of four tenants, who have each a horse in the plough, and their ground mixed in run-rig, will produce the quantity of subsistence, which the same farm can do in the hands of one man, who has both money and industry to cultivate the ground. With respect to ' Northern Counties and Islands, p. 207. 2 Ibid., 227. ' Berwick, p. 5°- * Southern Perth (1794), p. 22. In the second edition {General View of the Agri- culture in the County 0} Perth, 1799), the author adds that there were clusters of farms " even to the number in some cases of six or eight ploughs of land in one hamlet." THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 65 population, where is the difference, whether the other three far- mers live on the farm or in an adjoining village ? " > Elsewhere, writing of runrig as an obstacle to improvement, he continues: " But in our times nothing can be more absurd, than to see two or three, or perhaps four men, yoking their horses together in one plough and having their ridges alternately in the same field, with a bank of unploughed land between them by way of boundary. These diminutive possessions were carried to such a length, that in some parts of Scotland, beyond this county, the term a horse's foot of land is not wholly laid aside.^ The land is like a piece of striped cloth with banks full of weeds and ridges of corn in con- stant succession from one end of a field to the other. Under such management, all these people must have concurred in one opinion with regard to the time and manner of ploughing every field, the kind of grain to be sown, and the season and weather fit for sowing, and whether they and their horses were to be em- ployed or idle. Even so late as thirty or forty years ago, this practice prevailed, not only over the greater part of the county of Perth, but with very few exceptions over all Scotland. Since that period it has been gradually going into desuetude . . . and must soon disappear, except where the landlord is as much of a Goth as his tenants." ' In verification of the important fact that runrig applied to the arable strips of the tenants of a single farm, who were seldom more than six in number, we have the explicit statement of two other reporters. FuUarton writes of Ayr: " The arable farms were generally small, because the tenants had not stock for larger occupations. A plough-gate of land, or as much as could employ four horses, allowing half of it to be ploughed, was a common sized farm. It was often/ runridge or mixed property; and two or three farmers usually lived in the same place, and had their different distributions of the farm in various proportions, from 10 to 40, 60, or 100 acres." ^ Again, from Annandale, in the west, comes the comment: " It may have been from the same ideas of ' Southern Perth, (1794), p. 65. * According to the author's note, this was " the sixteenth part of a plough-gate." ' Ibid. (1799). 392- * ^y. P- 9- 1 66 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS common danger, and to call attention to the general safety, that so much of the corn lands lay in run-rigg or in rtm-dale property; and that almost every farm was run-dale in the corn-lands, and common in the pastures among four, six, eight or sometimes more tenants." ' Lastly, the reporter from Dumbarton notes, " In some places the old system ... is yet retained, [and] a mixed farm of little more than a hundred acres is subdivided, stuck- runways, among five or six tenants." ^ Sometimes, however, the tenants of a farm might come to number distinctly more than six or eight. Not, to be sure, the normal contributors to the plough, as the rhetorical phrase of Sir John Sinclair might suggest; ' but the increase was due rather to the addition of crofters, or cottagers, so well described by Mar- shall in his account of the agriculture of the Highlands. " This extraordinary class of cultivators appear to have been quartered upon the tenantry after the farms were split down into their smallest size; the crofters being a species of sub- tenants on the farms to which they are respectively attached. Besides one or two ' cows holdings ' and the pasturage of three or four sheep, they have a few acres of infield land (but no outfield or muir), which the tenant is obUged to cultivate; and they in return per- form to him certain services, as the work of harvest and the cast- ing of peats, the tenant fetching home the crofter's share. And still below these rank the Cotters, answering nearly to the cot- tagers of the southern provinces; except that, in the Highlands, they are attached, like the crofters, to the tenants or joint-tenants, on whose farm they reside; receiving assistance and returning for it services." ^ Robertson tells of similar holdings of cottagers in southern Perthshire : " Without taking notice of small possessions, which are called pendicles, because they are small portions of the land allotted by the farmer to cottagers, labourers and servants, which in some places is still the practice; the extent of what may be called farms, where one or more ploughs are yoked, is from 30 to 4cx) acres." ^ Elsewhere he says, " Many ' Annandale (co. Dumfries), app. iv, p. xxii. ' Dumbarton, p. 15. * Central Highlands, p. 32. ' See above, p. 164. ' Southern Perth, p. 57. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 67 instances might be pointed out where all the tenants of several ploughs and a number of cottagers are huddled together in one hamlet." ^ The phrases " tenants of several ploughs " and " where one or more ploughs are yoked " introduce a new complication. Thus far we have been told of the farm of one plough, whose tenants, besides crofters, were usually three or four, but might be six or eight. Their settlement, which was clearly the typical Scottish farm, was correspondingly small. If, however, the ploughs of a settlement sometimes increased, so too must the population have increased, the tenants to a plough remaining constant. For this larger aggregate of lands and tenants a special term was some- times reserved. It was called, par excellence, a township. Al- though Marshall speaks without differentiation of " the nominal farms or petty townships," ^ Robertson makes the distinction. In outlining the obstacles to improvement he begins with " town- ships," and under this rubric proceeds: " A number of plough- gates [' farms ' in the first edition] in one village or several ten- ants about one plough, having their land mixed with one another is a great bar to the improvement of any country. [Although they have disappeared where cultivation has made progress] in some districts they still remain and the blame is to be attributed to the landlord. Wherever a stranger sees four or six or eight ploughs of land, possessed perhaps by double that number of tenants and perhaps a cottage or two annexed to each plough, all huddled together in one village, he instantly Judges that the pro- prietor is destitute of understanding. . . . However necessary these hamlets were for the mutual aid of the inhabitants in rude ages and unsettled times ... in the happy days in which we live such clusters of houses are no longer necessary." ' Immediately after this the author notes as the second obstacle to improvement the existence of runrig. " This," he says, " is a species of the former evil upon a smaller scale," and he continues with the description, already quoted, of the two or three or four men who yoke their horses in one plough team.* • Southern Perth, p. 117. ' Perth (1799), p. 392. * Central Highlands, p. 32. * See above, p. 165. 1 68 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS There were, then, settlements larger than the farm of one plough, settlements consisting of six or eight ploughs and of twenty or thirty tenants and cottagers. Strictly speaking, these were the townships, although the term was doubtless applied to the farm. Indeed, there can have been no sharp line of demarca- tion between farm and township. It may have been simple enough to call a settlement of one plough-gate a farm and one of six plough-gates a township; yet which term was to be appKed to a group of tenants who maintained three or four ploughs ? Sharp distinctions must have faded away, till the terms farm and township tended to become confused. One thing, however, seems clear enough: Scottish units of settlement inclined to be small. Usually they comprised not more than a half-dozen tenants tilling together less than loo acres of land. Such in all strictness was the farm. If the nimiber of ploughs multiplied and the tenants, apart from crofters, in- creased to a dozen, the arable might expand to 300 or 400, acres. In general, however, we shall not be wrong in calling the group of tenants' houses a hamlet and the unit of settlement a hamlet- farm. All this is in contrast with the method of settlement usual in the English midlands. There the township often contained a thousand acres or more and the tenants numbered from twenty to one hundred.! -j^g ratio of one to four may not very inaccu- rately r^resent the relation between Scottish and English units of settlement in point of size. In other words, the fields of the smaller Scottish hamlet-farms were perhaps only about one- fourth as large as the fields of the smaller English townships, and the same was true of the fields of larger townships in both countries. It happened, of course, that the largest Scottish township-fields were as considerable as the smallest ones of the English mid- lands. Furthermore, the ratio did not hold good for all parts of England where the midland system prevailed. In Herefordshire, for example, the townships frequently had no greater area than those of Scotland, and yet a three-field system was employed there. None the less, the contrast is for the most part valid and ' Cf . the areas of the townships of Oxfordshire given in Appendix IV. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 69 is of importance. Hamlets and small fields were peculiar to Scotland, villages and large fields to the English midlands. A single feature remains to be added to the picture of a Scottish hamlet-farm, one which appears in certain changes made by James Robertson in the second edition of his report on Perthshire. After repeating that fifty years ago all farms were occupied in runrig, and after pointing to the inconvenience of the intermixed ridges, he continues: " And to add to the evil, one farmer possessed this year what his neighbor did possess the former. Not only farms but in some instances estates were divided in this manner, especially where a property fell into the hands of co-heirs. The first deviation from run-rig was by dividing the farm into Kavels or Kenches, by which every field of the same quality was split down into as many lots as there were tenants in the farm . . . [and] the possessors cast lots (or Kavels in the Scottish dialect) for their particular share. (Kench signifies a larger portion of land than a ridge.) This was a real improve- ment so far as it went; every farmer had his own lot in each field, . . . reaping the benefit of his industry, which by the run-rig husbandry he could not enjoy, owing to the exchange of ridges every year. Kavels still exist in the Stormont, and in some other parts of the county in a certain degree, and almost universally in village lands. In the latter they are unavoidable; in the former they are regularly exploded, as the old leases fall." ' In his description of Inverness-shire Robertson ampUfies this statement about the annual exchanging of ridges. " In some parts of the Highlands," he writes, " I have seen the land first- ploughed without leaving any boundaries except the furrow be- twixt the ridges; then the field was divided by putting small branches of trees into the ground to mark off every man's portion before the field was sown. No man knew his own land till the seed was to be cast into the ground and it became impossible for him to have the same portion of land any two successive years." ^ We are at length in a position to summarize the principal characteristics of the Scottish agricultural system as it appeared ' Perth (1799), p. 61. * Inverness, p. 335. I70 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS in the eighteenth century, and as it had probably existed for some time. The unit of the system was the farm, an area apparently comprising from thirty to four hundred acres, but usually less than one hundred, and requiring for its cultivation a plough of four horses, or at times more than one plough. The tenants were in general from two to four, although the number might increase to six or eight, apart from cottagers attached to the farm. Ten- ants and cottagers lived together in a cluster of houses, and their horses were joined to form the plough or ploughs. The acres of the farm were divided into infield and outfield, the former tilled year after year with the assistance of manure, the latter ploughed, part by part, for some five years and then allowed to revert to grass for at least as long a period. The arable was divided into strips, long, narrow, and sometimes serpentine. The strips of a tenant were not contiguous, but were separated one from another by the strips of other tenants, an arrangement known as runrig. Sometimes the allotment of strips did not take place until the ground was ready for the seed, and in such cases a tenant was not likely to receive the same strips in successive years. Nearly everything except the intermixture of the strips of the several tenants was different from the English two- and three- field system with which we have become famihar. The size of the farm as compared with that of the EngUsh township, the number of tenants, the infield and the outfield, the method of tillage, the annual re-allotment of strips ■ — all differed. Slater, in getting at the distinctive feature of runrig in contrast with the English open common field, concluded that it resided in the last of these characteristics — in the annual re-allotment of strips. The persistence of such a custom, furthermore, seems to him to have facihtated enclosure, since the tenants, when they finally dissolved their plough-partnership, must have tended to allot their lands with regard to convenience, and must have assigned to each of their number, not several scattered strips, but one parcel or at least few parcels. No resort to act of parliament or to the creation of a commission would thus be necessary to effect enclosure.^ ' English Peasantry, pp. 174-175. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 171 There may be some truth in this conjecture as to the conse- quences of the long persistence of the annual redistribution of strips. Robertson's account of the first steps taken in getting rid of runrig shows that such fluidity made easier the beginnings of a more convenient arrangement.* Yet in many places the custom of annual re-allotment cannot have persisted so long as cooperative ploughing and the old intermixture. The other re- porters do not speak of it, and Robertson elsewhere is careful to limit his statement by saying that " these ridges were in some cases frequently exchanged." ^ What generally gave the first impetus toward consolidation was not the practice of annually re-allotting strips, but the falling-in of the leases and the action of the landlord. Disregarding, however, the effect of annual re- distribution upon the beginnings of consohdation, we can scarcely look upon the usage as the most distinctive feature of Scottish runrig. Had the practice been in vogue under English two- and three-field husbandry as we have come to know it, the latter would still have been very different from the agriculture of Scotland. More characteristic of the latter were the size of the farm or township, its occupation by co-tenants or co-heirs, the manner in which it was tilled, and the distribution of the tenants' acres throughout the arable fields. Before considering these features, however, as manifestations of a Celtic type of field system, we shall do well to examine such information touching them as comes from Wales and Ireland. Some of it is earlier and some of it more specific than the Scottish evidence. When reports from Wales were made to the Board of Agri- culture in 1794, no open-field arable l)dng in common was to be found in certain coimties.' Much waste land in the principality^ 1 C£. above, p. 169. ^ Inverness, p. 334. ' Brecknock, p. 37: " There are no common fields in this district." Carmarthen, p. 21: " I do not know of any considerable extent of open common field land in the county." Denbigh, p. 11 : " There are no common arable lands in this county." * Brecknock, p. 39: " One half of the district, containing on the whole 512,000 acres, is waste lands." Cardigan, p. 29: "The greater part of the low lands is pretty well inclosed; but hilly and exposed situations are mostly open." Carmar- then, p. 20: "About two-thirds of the county is inclosed." Glamorgan, p. 42: " The waste land in this county is considerable; computed to amount to upwards 172 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS remained unimproved, sometimes not because of its poor quality but because of the inertness of the occupiers. The arable and pasture were usually described as enclosed.' Against this background of enclosures and unimproved wastes there were to be discerned, however, certain patches of common arable field. The reporter from Flintshire wrote: " There are no common fields, or fields in run-rig in this coimty, as I am in- formed, except between Flint and St. Asaph and it is intended to divide and inclose them. The difference in rent between open and inclosed fields is estimated at one-third. . . . From the appearance of the fences in this county, inclosing has been very general many years ago." ^ Thus in northeastern Wales the remnants, at least, of common fields lingered, their value was estimated relative to that of enclosed land, and the writer thought it probable that existent closes were made within hving memory. On the western coast another instance was noted by the reporters from Cardiganshire: " The only tract like a com- mon field is an extent of very productive barley-land, reaching on the coast from Aberairon to Llanrhysted. This quarter is much intermixed and chiefly in small holdings." ' The tract in question is some ten miles in length. Farther along the coast at the southwestern extremity of Wales, is St. David's. Here again the reporter for Pembrokeshire noted and explained the existence of common fields: " In the neighborhood of St. David's of 120,000 acres; upon which common without stint is exercised by the occupiers in the vicinity of such waste land." Carnarvon, p. 15 : "A great part of Carnarvon- shire is still unenclosed." Denbigh, -p. ii: " There are . several commons of very considerable extent.'' Flint, p. 2: "Although some small portions of the waste lands have lately been divided and inclosed, yet there are many thousand acres still left in their original state, which are capable of being converted into arable and pasture lands. And although all the waste lands or commons in North Wales are denominated mountains, yet many of them are as level as a bowling green; and in this county they are, in general, not more hilly than the arable lands nor is the soil inferior in quality, were it well cultivated." ' Merioneth, p. 8: "The lands in this county are mostly enclosed, the sheep walks excepted." Montgomeryshire, p. 9: " The cultivated parts of this county are mostly inclosed, and the fences are in general old, consisting of an intermixture of hawthorn, hazel, crab, etc., as in Flintshire." ^ George Kay, Flintshire, p. 4. ' T. Lloyd and the Rev. Mr. Turner, Cardigan, p. 29. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 73 considerable tracts of open field land are still remaining, which is chiefly owing to the possessions of the church being inter- mixed with private property; and the want of a general law to enable the bishop and clergy to divide, exchange and enclose their lands." ^ The situation and the explanation of it are re- iterated, finally, by the reporter from Glamorgan. " The land in tillage, or appropriated to grazing," he wrote, " is generally inclosed; open or common fields are rarely met with in South Wales. It is a mode of occupation practiced there in some few instances where ecclesiastical and private property are blended." ^ Such is the sum of the Welsh evidence contained in the reports of 1794 relative to common arable fields. Three occurrences of such fields are rioted, one in the extreme northeast, the others in the south and west on or near the coast. For the phenomenon in south Wales we are told that ecclesiastical properties were answer- able; but there is nothing to indicate that such was the case in Flintshire, while on the coastal stretch of Cardiganshire the inter- mixed properties were chiefly small holdings, apparently not ecclesiastical. If, as seems probable, these ecclesiastical prop- erties were glebe lands, their scattered parcels suggest that at some earlier time all holdings may have been similarly constituted and that the glebe parcels were the last to be exchanged. About the nature of the open fields we learn little. The Cardigan stretch was " very productive barley-land," while the district between Flint and St. Asaph was more hilly but not ill adapted to agri- culture. In contrast with this small amount of common field, the central and northwestern parts of Wales are said to have been entirely enclosed, so far as improved lands were concerned.^ To discover whether the eighteenth-century patches were due to exceptional causes operative only on the borders of the princi- pality, or whether they were survivals of what had once been a ' C. Hassal, Pembroke, p. 20. ^ J. Fox, Glamorgan, p. 41. " Of Carnarvonshire, in the northwest, the reporter writes (p. 15), "A great part is still uninclosed " ; but he does not state whether the unenclosed lands were arable or waste. Probably he refers to waste lands, since he continues: " The old fences appear to have been finished in a very imperfect manner. They consist chiefly of dry stone walls and earthen banks." 174 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS universal phenomenon, we turn to the surveys of Tudor and Jacobean times. As it happens, these surveys refer for the most part to the very regions which have just been noted as retaining open fields in the eighteenth century. They are concerned with large lordships in Pembrokeshire in the southwest and Denbighshire in the north- east. From other counties of Wales evidence is scanty, save for one acceptable survey from Anglesey. The testimony from the first two regions, which, to judge from the Hberal sprinkling of English place-names, were less purely Welsh, may be examined first. The intermixture of the parcels of the holdings in Pembroke- shire, described in the eighteenth-century report, is confirmed by a note prefixed to the survey of the royal lordship of Haverford- west, made in 21 James I. " Also whereas the Landes of theise Tenements doe He devided amonge the Tennants in small par- cells lyeng intermixedUe wherebie the Tennants cannot make full profitt of theire tenements and thereby they are the lesse valu- able in the lettinge; It were verie convenient in our opinions for his highnes proffitt and for the benefitt of the Tennants that by viewe of a Jurie in everie Mannor or by some direction from your Lordship the land were viewed and by exchange made entire as neere as male be, or sorted in such partes as the tennantes male enclose and therebie make theire beste proffitt. And wee holde it conveynient that for all exchaunges to be made of anie peeces of land betwixte the Tennantes for conveyniencie, that the same be made in writinge and presented at the next Courte to the Stewarde to be Recorded, and that Notwithstandinge the ex- chaunge the auncient landshares and meares betwixt the peeces be preserved." ' In determining the value of a ploughland the surveyors state further that they have had " regarde to the goodnes of ech mans holdings and whither it laye togethers or dispersed." ^ No doubt can exist, then, about the intermixture of parcels here; and, since there is talk about ancient land- • Land Rev., M. B. 206, f. 39. The lordship included the manors of " Camros, St. Issmells, Rock, Pull, and Staynton." ' Land Rev., M. B. 238, f. 37. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 75 shares and meres and enclosing, it is evidence that the parcels must have been in open field or at least intermixed in large enclosures. The procedure which is recommended above by the surveyors was in 1593 well under way at Carew or New Shipping, some ten miles distant. In the hst of demesne lands, for the most part closes, we hear of the following: — " One acre lying in the closure which lyeth on the north side of the myll pond; it lyeth among other lands; it was taken from the tenement that nowe John hillen holdeth and added to the demains of New Shippinge; this land is enable or pasture ground. . . . Item iiii acres lyinge in the foresaid close, whereof iii acres lyeth togeather in one peece and one acre at the end thereof, all arrable or pasture ground . . . ; it [the iiii acres] was sometyme belonging to the tenement that now John mertyn holdeth. . . . " Parcells of grounde taken from tenements in newton and added to the demesne of New Shipping: fower acres arable or pasture; five of like ground; three acres of like errable . . . ; two acres of like errable . . . ; two acres of like errable . . . ; two acres of like errable. . . . Memorandum, all these . . . par- cells of grounde are newly enclosed in one closure which close lieth on the north side of the said mesuage of newe shippinge. . . . " Lands taken From newton annexed to New shippyng: Item three acres situate in the fielde or crofte on the north side of Carewe. bridge sometimes belonginge to a tenement in Newton in the occupation of Henry Saunders consisting of errable or pas- ture grounde . . . ; Item two acres in the saide feelde or croft taken from the tenement wherein John woodes now dwelleth beinge errable or pasture grounde . . . ; two acres in the saide croft sometimes belonging to a tenement wherein Richard Bowen now dwelleth of Uke errable or pasture grounde." ^ Near by, at Sagestown, certain lands of the queen were thus described by the surveyors: — " John Benion occupieth the tenemente and xvii acres parcell of the saide xxv acres; and as to viii acres, the residue, iiii of them ' Land Rev., M. B. 260, ff. 217, 219J. 176 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS lie togeathers in an open fielde on the easte side of the said town- shippe of Sageston havinge the highway that leadeth from Carewe to temby on the south side; two other acres lie togeathers in the same fielde neare a place called the haies, these vi acres are pulled from the forsaide tenemente and are anexed to a tenemente in the occupation of one griffith Froine; one acre and a half lyinge togeathers in the said fielde nowe holden by John Gibbe and John Thomas; One acre the residue lyeth in a fielde on the weste side of Sagiston neare the church way taken from the said tenement and anexed to the demaine lands of the castle. . . . Memorandum, insteade of the vi acres annexed to Froines tenemente . . . there is vi other acres taken from the saide froines tenement and added to the demaines of the castle they He in the fielde on the west side of Sagiston neare the church way beinge errable or pasture. . . . " ' Of these parcels in New Shipping and Sagestown it will be noticed that the second group, once open, had been enclosed upon consolidation, that the last group apparently still lay in open field, while the first and third groups had lain intermixed in fields already enclosed. These two groups show that inter- mixture of tenants' parcels in Wales does not necessarily imply that the parcels in question were in open field. Strips of more than one tenant sometimes lay within the same close. It will be noticed further that the intermixed parcels above described as newly enclosed were arable or pasture. The situation is one which could as well have arisen from the subdivision of a close of arable or pasture among several heirs as from the enclosure of an open field. If in any particular Pembrokeshire survey which has come down to us we try to discover the number and fextent of the open fields or of the closes containing intermixed parcels, we shall find only a few of them. In the survey of St. Florence, made in 1609, much land is described as pasture or enclosed arable, while only the following field names recur more than twice, with parcels of the size indicated held in each place by different tenants: ^ — ' Land Rev., M. B. 260, f. 222. * Land Rev., M. B. 206, ff. 227-243. The areas are in acres. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 77 Bloody acre, i, i, 2 J, i in Blackhill fields or at Blackhill, 4I, 8, |, i J, 7, 9J at Burrows, i, i, f at Ladyland, and at Langstone " in Ladyland field," 4, i, |, o 4 ji t1 tS at MiddlehiU, 5 (in open field), 4?, i, 52 in Cherrieland, |, | at Honnyland, 4, 4 in the East field of Flemyngton, 9, 6. Flemington is the township to the west, and apparently had its East field. Since the other localities have not perpetuated them- selves on the ordnance map, they were probably fields rather than hamlets. The total area at St. Florence throughout which the parcels of the tenants were intermixed appears therefore to have been about seventy-five acres. A few miles to the north lay the lordship of Narberth, of which we have a survey made in 7 James I.' The lordship comprised, besides Narberth, the townships of Templeton and Robeston. At Templeton there was no open common arable, all holdings con- sisting of " arable land enclosed " and " mountain ground." The Narberth holdings were less uniform. For the most part they were, so far as described, either closes or " arable and pasture at Middle hill." Three tenants at least had " arable not enclosed," in amounts of from six to fourteen acres, but no further descrip- tion of these unenclosed acres is vouchsafed. Robeston was the township which, of the three, seemed most inclined to intermix the parcels of the tenants. Of this we are assured by no definite statement, but the assignment of smaU par- cels to the same field division can scarcely be interpreted in any other way. Particularly noteworthy is the case of four tenants, each of whom had exactly the same series of small parcels in nine localities. Four times is repeated the following hst of fractional acres: f in hill park close, f in woodways close, f (or f ) in Hookes- meade, f in Blind will, f at Utter hoke, | above the haies, \ at Narbert waie, \ at Langsjtone, | at Lynacre. What had taken place was a division, among the four tenants, of plots of land 1 Land Rev., M. B. 206, ff. 118-186. 178 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS containing respectively 3,3, 2,3, 15, 2, i, i, i, acres, and a ming- ling of small parcels had been the result. Such intermixture does not imply the existence of open field, since before subdivision the areas may have been closes, and in two instances are said to have been. Indeed, " parkes " and closes at Robeston were numerous, a sign that the township was largely enclosed. Some further intermixture of the same sort there may have been, especially in the following localities, where acre- or fractional acre-parcels were in the occupation of different tenants (except in case of those connected by -|-) : — Castlecroft, i, i| (arable), 12 (2 parcels), |, f, i, i| (2 parcels of arable), 5 at Two Acres and Little Two Acres, 1,1, 1,1, 1,2 (3 parcels), Stubby land, J, |, | in or at Woostland, | (arable), f , f , |, \, f (arable) Shortlands, 2, 2, f upon the Hill (arable), i + J, 5, 2§ -|- ij, i, if (2 parcels), i+il, 2i + ii in the Vran (arable), 3 (3 parcels), i (2 parcels), |, i§, 3 (3 parcels), i (2 parcels). At best, the total area of the tenants' parcels which were inter- mixed at Robeston was probably not more than eighty acres. This amount differs Uttle from that just estimated for St. Flor- ence. Since these two Pembrokeshire townships, of all those described in the Jacobean surveys, inclined most to intermixed holdings, we may conclude that at the end of the sixteenth century the county had its arable largely enclosed. Some inter- mixed land was to be found; but at times it lay within closes, and in certain instances it pretty clearly arose from the sub- division of parcels among a group of tenants. It seems never to have predominated in a township, and probably seldom exceeded one hundred acres. From the Pembrokeshire surveys we may turn to those of Den- bighshire in the northeast, especially to some that come from a region in which the place-names are even less Welsh than those of Pembrokeshire. This is a part of the valley of the Dee, ten THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 79 miles above Chester and adjacent to the English county. Wrex- ham is the largest town of the district, and its open field, as pictured in John Norden's survey of 1620,' has been briefly de- scribed by A. N. Pahner,^ who follows the history of the butts and quillets to the present day. Norden's survey, like several others antedating it, refers to the lordship of Bromfield and Yale, a lordship so extensive as to be subdivided into seventeen manors containing 62 townships or hamlets. Excellent and detailed as is this description, it is not more so than one of some seventy years earUer preserved at the Pubhc Record Office.' For the most part both surveys are concerned with townships and hamlets entirely enclosed. Such, for example, in Norden's survey are Brymbo, Esclusham, Bersham, Moreton Anglicorum, all of which are described in full, with specification of closes.* There are, however, three or four townships which in both sur- veys show certain traces of open field. These traces are very slight at Holt, being confined to three fields, each divided between two freeholders, and to a fourth in which six freeholders have parcels of arable or pasture.^ They are most numerous at Wrex- ham, at Pickhill and Siswick, and at Issacoed, a division in which the principal hamlets were Sutton and Button. The earlier survey is henceforth quoted. At Wrexham we find, what is very rare elsewhere, the term " common field." John Hower had, besides a messuage, garden, and pasture close of an acre, " ii acras terre arabilis iacentes in communi campo dicte ville." David Middleton, along with four tenements and eighteen acres of pasture in seven closes, had an- other tenement, a close of pasture, and " xii seliones terre iacentes in communibus campis villarum vaure Wryxham et Waghame continentes [with the close] viii acras terre arabilis et pasture." ^ ' The survey is printed from Harleian MS. 3696, in Archaeologia Cambrensis, Supplement of Original Documents (1877), vol. i, pp. cxi sq. ' The Town, Fields, and Folk of Wrexham in the Time of James the First, Wrex- ham, etc., [1884]. ' Land Rev., M. B. 249, the entire 210 folios. The survey as a whole is not dated, but the most recent leases and copyholds are c. 39 Henry VIII. ' Archaeologia Catnbrensis, Supplement, etc., vol. i, pp. ccii sq. ' Land Rev., M. B. 249, ff. 8-22. « Ibid., f. 68. 1 80 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Usually the " communi " is omitted and " in campo " occurs alone.^ Nine other tenants resembled the two mentioned in having a few acres or selions in the fields of Wrexham Vaur.^ Since closes are sometimes included in the areas given, the total amount of open-field arable at Wrexham cannot be exactly deter- mined. It comprised about one hundred selions, varying in size from ^ to f of an acre, and it can hardly have exceeded sixty acres. The amount is not large for the middle of the six- teenth century, nor can it, of course, have increased by Norden's time. In the survey of Pickhill and Siswick the term " butts " for the most part replaces " seHones," and each butt contained from a quarter-acre to a half-acre.' Of the two holdings which incline most to open arable field, one has about one-fourth of its area so described, the other about one-half.* Elsewhere in the survey ' For example, " William ap Maddoc at Robert ap David ap Gruff ap Robert " held three messuages, three closes containing eleven acres, and " xiv seUones terre iacentes in campo viUe predicte [Wrexham Vaur] continentes iii acras terre " (Land Rev., M. B. 249, f. 72J). 2 Their holdings comprised the selions of the preceding note, together with the following eight entries: — " ii acras terre in diversis selionibus . . et unam sellionem ii Eruas terre continentes dimidiam acram et unam rodam vii seliones terre . . . continentes per estimationem vi acras terre arabilis viii seliones terre . . . continentes iv acras terre quinque clausas et xii seliones . . . continentes ... vii acras terre . . . et vii seliones [no area] cum octo clausis et diversis sellionibus . . . continentibus per estimationem XX acras terre V selliones [no area] xii selliones continentes per estimationem vi acras terre " (ibid., S. 65-74). ^ Ibid., S. 124-130. ' The two are as follows: — " Jenkyn ap Jenn ap David nativus ut dicit tenet ibidem unam ceparalem clausam pasture vocatam Ibryn Istrowe alias Stonyclose continentem per estimationem iii acras pasture et unam clausam prati continentem ii acras et dimidiam ibidem ac unam aliam parcellam terre arabilis vocatam Estymarowe continentem per estimationem iiii acras pasture Et V butts iacentes in Kay Jenkyng continentes i acram terre et iii butts in dole Seswyke continentes i acram et iiii butts iacentes in dole Seswyke et vi butts iacentes ibidem continentes ii acras et dimidiam terre arabilis THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 8 1 closes very largely predominate.^ As at Wrexham, the total open-field arable did not amount to more than sixty acres, and was probably less. Et ii pecias terre ceparalis continentes dimidiam acram terre iacentem iuxta brynstonoc [et] ii ceparales clausas continentes per estimationem iii acras terre ibidem et i acram et dimidiam in quadam clausa vocata Kay parva." " Maddoc ap Roberti ap llywelyn tenet in pychell unum tenementum et viii clausas terre in ceparali continentes xii acras pasture et arabilis et i et dimidiam acram prati vocatam gwerlozh ekeyveney et unam peciam prati continentem dimidiam acram prati iacentem in prate vocato gwerne estymavall' et XV lez butts iacentes in dolebikill [' dolbykelfeld ' is crossed out] et xi alias continentes per estimationem iii acras terre et ii pecias terre arrabilis iacentes in campo vocato ystymarowe continentes i acram terre et in le maysegwyn i peciam continentem i acram et dimidiam Et in campo vocato Oldymawre i peciam pasture continentem i acram Et in campo vocato Frythe iii butts continentes tertiam partem i acre Et in campo vocato maysmawre iiii lez butts ibidem continentes i acram et dimidiam Et in campo vocato Skythery unam peciam continentem dimidiam acram terre arabilis Et in campo vocato Ekeyveney unam peciam continentem dimidiam acram terre arabilis Et in dauso vocato Ekeyvya unam parvam peciam terre " Land Rev., M. B. 249, ff. 128,1286). ^ The following are the only other indications of open-field arable. Except where bracketed together, the parcels are in different holdings : — " vii butts in doUgough ( xiv butts in campo de Keynistneth continentes iii acras ( iv butts continentes i acram Sxxiv le butts iacentes in dole gowgh et urencregog continentes iii acras terre i acram in masseweU ( sex parcellas continentes xv butts terre in campis de Pychyll \ unam sellionem terre vocatam heyle iii acras terre arabilis iacentes in le butts xii butts continentes vi acras terre xviii butts continentes iii acras terre vi butts iacentes inbryngcregoch continentes dimidiam acram terre et i rodam ix butts in le bullowgh aid corn continentes per estimationem ii acras terre iii butts in dole gowgh xix parcellas et . butts terre arabilis continentes per estimationem iii acras terre vii lez butts continentes ii acras terre " (ibid., flf. 124-130). 1 82 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Longest of all these surveys which reveal open field is that of the division of the lordship which is called Issacoed and which contained nine hamlets.^ The descriptions are often non-committal, but the total, once more, did not exceed fifty acres.^ ' Land Rev., M. B. 249, ff. 147-164. 2 The following list seems to embrace all the open-field parcels, those of the same holding being bracketed together: — iiii butts in Gillowistayth continentes dimidiam acram iii acras in le grodyer ac iiii lez butts iacentes in alio Grodyer i acram in dolblythy V butts in quadam clausa vocata dollevellen ii pecie terre iacentes in CaystabeU continentes i acram ii butts in cargrose continentes i rodam terre xi butts in le grodyer continentes i acram et dimidiam ii butts in alio grodyer ii butts in berthyer continentes dimidiam rodam I. viii butts in Errowe continentes i acram terre vii butts in le mersshegwyn xi butts in dyttonbrayne continentes per estimationem ii acras terre ix acras terre arabilis iacentes ibidem [in Ditton] in diversis parcellis dimidiam lez butts iacentem [in] panthulog continentem i acram ii lez butts continentes dimidiam acram terre in Sutton in diversis parvis peciis terre iacentes in dole Sutton circa iii acras terre i acram in le grodyer quinque diversas parcellas terre iacentes in communibus campis [of Sutton] continentes per estimationem iii acras terre iii butts vocatas tyre y Kauboth continentes dimidiam acram terre ii parcellas terre in dole Sutton continentes i acram terre i acram et i rodam per estimationem in Kayrkewle vii butts [in] iii parcellis in le goidra continentes ii acras i acram et dimidiam prati iacentem ibidem i rodam prati iacentem in doll vha V butts in doU utha et i rodam et i butt in doll utha i parcellam in dollissa continentem dimidiam acram terre vi butts et unam parvam clausam . continentem i acram et dimidiam terre ii butts in KaystabeU continentes i rodam terre i butt iacentem in Kaystabellissa continentem i rodam vii butts in Kayglase continentes ii acras terre iiii butts in drowestole ussa iiii butts in grodyer dytton vii butts iacentes infra Gillough isstathelogg ii clausas pasture et certis terris [sic] in conmiuni campo de Sutton conti- nentes X acras terre iacentes in Sutton i acram terre [in] duobus parcellis in communibus campis ibidem [Horseley]. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 83 To the survivals of common fields in the lordship of Bromfield should be added slight traces found in the survey of the adjacent manor of Ruthin. ' Although this is much concerned with mes- suages and with small holdings which are nearly always enclosed, common fields are mentioned two or three times.'' In a holding at Llammirock there was appurtenant to a house and garden " terra arabilis in communibus campis vocatis tir y cech," the tenant paying a total rent of 6 d. In Ruthin itself there was held by lease a messuage, three closes containing eleven acres, and " terra arabilis in communi campo vocato Pantmigan continens per estimationem xii acras terra arabilis in predicto campo continens per estimatio- nem ii acras." In a survey so long as this one such common fields are almost lost. Thus far only surveys from the English parts of Wales have been examined. Nearly all hamlets in which intermixed parcels have been found bear English names, and even in these the amount of common arable was surprisingly small. One might surmise that in purely Welsh surroundings no common fields whatever were known. So far as our evidence goes, however, the situation seems not to have differed from that already de- scribed. A certain amount of intermixed ownership is visible in places where it can scarcely be attributed to English influence. Best of the Jacobean surveys of Welsh regions are those from Anglesey. Frequently these descriptions speak only of non- committal " parcels," but occasionally we discover that the parcels which constituted a holding lay scattered. Such was the case with certain of the lands of John Lewys, armiger, at Cliviock, which are described as follows: — " ii parcelle terre arabilis sparsim iacentes in quodam campo vocato Dryll y Castell . . . continentes ii acras v rodas ii parcelle terre arabilis sparsim iacentes in quodam campo vocato Glodissa . . . continentes iiii acras . . . una parcella terre arabilis iacens in quodam campo vocato dol Gledog continens iii acras et dimidiam ' Land Rev., M. B. 239, f£. 1 25-181. ' Ibid., ff. 167, 175. 1 84 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS terra arabilis iacens in campo vocato Bryn y gwyddal continens iiii acras." * In the rather long account of the lands held by lessees in the manors Hendre, Rosfaire, and Mardreff, in the Anglesey commot of Menai,^ one may find holdings which comprised, for example : — " Domum mansionalem . . . cum parvo crofto . . . et Sex parvas clausas continentes per estimationem ix acras Sex aUas parcellas terre arabihs iacentes in gallt Beder conti- nentes per estimationem i acram Tres ahas parcellas terre arabilis iacentes in carreg y gwydd continentes per estimationem i acram i rodam Unam aliam parcellam terre arabilis ibidem iacentem iiixta viam ad Carnarvon continentem i rodam." ^ The holdings in general inclined, much as did this one, to have parcels in three or four localities, called kesu mawr, kesu bychan gallt bedr, and carreg y gwydd. It is not clear whether the first two were hamlets or fields; but carreg y gwydd is once called a " campus," * and five times acres are said to lie " sparsim " in gallt bedr.^ These two areas were thus presumably characterized by intermixed ownership, eight tenants having parcels in carreg y gwydd and seventeen in gallt bedr.^ Some intermixture of parcels in Anglesey thus seems demonstrable, although we learn nothing about the shape of the parcels, their relation one to another, or the method by which they were tilled. The character of the open field is far from clear, and the descriptions of the free- ' Land Rev., M. B. 205, £. 135. ' Ibid., £. 30. 2 Ibid., ff. 25-30. •• Ibid., f. 28. * e. g., " Sex parcelle terre arabilis iacentes sparsim in gallt beder continentes ii acras." " The areas in acres were as follows: — carreg y gwydd, 3 (" acras terre arabilis iacentes sparsim "), i, 2, 8 (7 par- cels of arable, J, J, if (4 parcels of arable), 2! gallt bedr, 3 (i parcel), 3 (6 parcels of arable), 2 (3 parcels of arable " spar- sim "), 2 (5 parcels of arable), i (6 parcels of arable " sparsim "), i (2 parcels of arable), | -f- i (7 parcels of arable) + i (meadow), i (2 par- cels " sparsim "), i (6 parcels of arable), 2 (6 parcels of arable " spar- sim "), i, i, 4 (8 parcels of arable), i (6 parcels of arable), 2 (4 parcels of arable), 2 (6 parcels of arable " sparsim "), 3 (5 parcels of arable "sparsim"). THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 85 holds of these manors add little to our knowledge. Since in them closes are sometimes designated as such, we may perhaps be justified in inferring that parcels not so designated were unen- closed and non-adjacent.i Considered in its entirety, accord- ingly, the evidence from Anglesey points to the existence there in Jacobean days of holdings which consisted to some extent at least of scattered parcels of arable lying in open fields. In other parts of Wales than those already considered traces of open field are shght. The twenty-six tenants of the manor of Eglowis K3Tnin in Carmarthen had in 7 James I only " parks " or closes.'' In a survey of Gower and Kilvey,^ Glamorganshire, made in 1665, there were many " closes " and " parcels," but little to indicate open field. Of doubtful significance are the " three other parcells, called fields, leying intermixt with the lands of the said George Lucas," containing three acres.' In the six large volumes of Cartae et alia Munimenta quae ad Dominium de Glamorgancia pertinent, edited by G. L. Clark, we find many descriptions of closes, but only two or three revealing open fields. In the fief of Landbither four acres are specified, of which ' A certain freehold, for example, consisted of a house, a garden, and " quatuor parcellas terre arabiUs vocatis Cay pen y kevn insimul continentes . . . V acras 1 perticatas unam parcellam terre et pasture, unam peciam vocatam cay bach, et alter- am . . iacentes super quandam clausam vocatam Cay y weyrglodd continentes . ii rodas xiv perticatas unam parcellam terre arabilis vocatam y rerw dew continentem . . i acram unam aUam parcellam terre arabilis iacentem in quadam Clausa vocata Cay r Uo continentem . . i acram et aliam parcellam terre arabihs vocatam y dalarhir continentem . . . xxx perticatas et aliam parcellam terre arabilis iacentem in loco vocato cay y felin continen- tem . . . i rodam xxxv perticatas et clausam terre arabilis et pasture saxosam continentem . . . v acras et parcellam terre arabilis et prati vocatam bryn Uin continentem in toto . . . ii acras unam aUam parcellam terre arabilis iacentem in quadam clausa vocata Penrhyn fadog continentem . . . ii rodas x perticatas " (Land Rev., M. B. 205, f. 16). 2 Land Rev., M. B. 258, ff. 1-17. ' Archaeologia Cambrensis, Supplement of Original Documents, i. 270. 1 86 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS " duae acrae iacent in cultura qui vocatur Kayraryan . . . et una acra iacet in cultura qui vocatur Kayrpistel et una acra iacet in cultura qui vocatur Hendref." This may be open field or it may not be. Somewhat more sug- gestive of it are the 4f acres of arable which were conveyed along with one- third of a messuage in Landoghe; ^ but abundant testi- mony of this sort is by no means forthcoming. Our examination of Jacobean surveys from Wales has brought to Hght only a relatively sUght extent of open arable field in which the parcels of the tenants were intermixed. In each of the two townships of Pembrokeshire for which areas can be estimated it did not exceed one hundred acres, and it was not greater in the Denbighshire townships. In purely Welsh regions Httle more than the existence of common arable fields in Jacobean days can be determined. A reason for the insignificance of such fields, together with testimony to their earlier prevalence, is to be found in Owen's description of Pembrokeshire, written in 1603. Explaining why winter corn is so little grown in that county, the author remarks : " One other cause was the use of gavelkinde used amonge most of these Welshmen to parte all the Fathers patrymonie amonge all his sonnes, so that in proces of tyme the whole countrie was brought into smale peeces of ground and intermingled upp and downe one with another, so as in every five or sixe acres you shall have ten or twelve owners; this made the Countrie to remayne Champion, and without enclosures or hedging, and wynter Corne if it weare sowen amonge them should be grased all the winter and eaten by sheepe and other cattell, which could not be kept from the same: . . . this in my opinion was one cheefe cause ' " Dimidia acra iacet in loco qui vocatur Votlond inter terram et terram . . et caput ejus occidens extenditur usque ad feodum de Denaspowys due acre et dimidia iacent apud Langeton inter terram . . . et terram . . . dimidia acra iacet inter terram et terram dimidia acra iacet scilicet in Votlond inter terram . . . et terram . . dimidia acra iacet in loco appellate Morewithe Stlad una roda iacet in parte boreali prati quondam Alexandri " Cartae, etc. (Cardiff, 1910), iii. 722. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 87 they restrayned sowing of wynter corne but as nowe sythence the use of gavelkinde is abolished for these threescore yeares past [by statute of 34 and 35 Henry VIII c. 26, sees. 36, 64] in many partes the grounde is brought together by purchase & exchanges and headging & enclosures much encreased, and now they fall to the tiUinge of this wynter corne in greater aboundance then before." ' From this it is clear that parcels of holdings in the Welsh parts of Pembrokeshire had once been intermixed and unenclosed but that the abolition of transmission by gavelkind had encouraged consolidation and enclosure. The reference to gavelkind sug- gests that it was a determining principle in the Welsh field system, and at once calls to mind the part played by co-tenants in Scottish agrarian arrangements. Before following out these suggestions, however, we shall profit by attending for a little to Irish condi- tions; and we shall naturally inquire first whether Irish units of settlement were, like those of Scotland and Wales,^ of the hamlet type surrounded by small arable fields. In Ireland the units of settlement are and long have been the townlands, but in seventeenth-century surveys they assume various names and are variously grouped into larger units. Since many of these units were more or less artificial, subserving pur- poses of rating or assessment, Hke EngHsh hides or virgates, it is always necessary to keep apart the actual from the artificial units. The size and shape of an actual Irish townland of the nineteenth century is illustrated by any section of the six-inch ordnance sur- vey map ; and the areas of the eight towns which Seebohm has reproduced from county Monaghan, and which range in size from 35 to 165 acres with an average of about 90 acres, are entirely typical.' Seebohm has gone farther, and identified these eight townlands by means of their names with eight fates of a survey of 1607. The tate was primarily a unit of rating, whereas the Latin term for townland was villata. Sometimes, as in the instance cited ' George Owen, The Description of Penbrokshire, (ed. H. Owen, Cymmrodorion Record Series, 3 pts., London, 1892-1906), i. 61. * The places referred to in the survey of the lordship of Bromfield and Yale were usually hamlets, the arable fields of which were inextensive. ' English Village Community, p. 224. 1 88 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS by Seebohm, villata and tate corresponded in extent; ^ elsewhere they did not, more than one villata being sometimes included in a tate.* Again, in county Tyrone, where the townland was equiva- lent to the " balliboe " and contained about sixty acres, it was itself a unit of rating.' In county Fermanagh, however, it once more differed from the artificial units. Usually each of the seven baronies into which this county had been artificially divided con- tained seven and one-half ballybetages. Each ballybetage in turn contained four quarters, each quarter four tates, each tate 30 acres, " contrey measure." In consequence the barony com- prised 30 artificial quarters, or 120 tates.* Elsewhere we learn that the first of the baronies, Knockenyng, was six miles in length by three in breadth, " wherein are 24 townes." * The townlands *in county Fermanagh therefore corresponded with none of the artificial units, although they were not far removed in size from the quarters. In this barony of Knockenyng their average area was 150 acres. In Donegal the villata was equivalent to the quarter, and, since yf quarters are said to have contained about 1000 acres,^ the townland here too comprised on the average about 125 acres. ' Inquisitionum in Officio Rottdorum Cancellariae Hiberniae Repertorium (Rec. Com., 2 vols., 1826-29), ii, co. Monaghan, no. 2 (1609): " Tres vil' sive precincte terre vocate ballibetaghes . . . que . . . continent quasdam minores parcellas, villatas sive particulas terre vocate tates, viz. Ballileggichory continet i tate vocatam Ballileggichory, i tate vocatam Mullaghbracke " [etc.; sixteen tates are named]. ^ Ibid., no. 4 (1619) : " Jacobus O'Donelly nuper abbas nuper monasteri sanc- torum Petri et. Pauli de Ardmagh ac conventus . . . seisati fuerunt . . . de separalibus villis, viUatis sive hamlettis et terris vocatia Mullaghegny, Reagh, AghneljTiy, Edenaguin et Broaghduflf, cum suis pertinentibus continentibus i tate . . . ac de villis, villatis sive hamlettis ac terris vocatis Knocknecarny et Umy, cum suis pertinentibus continentibus i tate." ' Ibid., Tyrone, no. 5 (1628) : " King James did grant unto James Claphame ... all the lands in the severall townes, etc. following, i. e., Cloghogall being i towne or balliboe of land, Creighduffe being i towne-land," etc. These townlands consisted of three sessiaghs each. The uniformity of the subdivision and of the sixty-acre area (ibid., 1661, no. 19) are what suggest that the toume is here a unit of rating rather than one of settlement. * Ibid., pp. xxxiii-xl. ' Ibid., p. xviii. ' Ibid., Donegal, no. 9 (1620). THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 89 In a survey of 32 Henry VIII we are told the areas of the town- lands, and leam in addition how many peasant households each contained. Two descriptions run as follows: — " Villata de Balnestragh. William Dyxson tenet scitum man- erii vocati Balnestragh super quod edificantur duo castra . . . terra dominica continet be acras terre arabilis et i acram prati iacentes in villata de Balnestragh. . . . " Et [dicunt] quod sunt infra eandem villatam vii messuagia cxv acre iii rode terre arabilis x acre communis pasture ac ii acre more in occupatione Donaldi O'Daylye, Donaldi Holloghan et aliorum. . Et sunt iii cottagia. " Et [dicunt] quod sunt in Villata de Ballerayne vi messuagia cxxxiii acre terre arabilis xx acre communis pasture et xx acre more quas Mauridus O'Nayry, clericus, Ricardus O'Morrye e^ aUi tenentes ibidem occupant. ... Et sunt x cotagia. . . . " ^ From these instances we may conclude that Irish units of settlement were in size much like Scottish townships. Their areas, averaging from one hundred to two hundred acres, were perhaps a little greater and their tenants may have been a little more numerous. From the point of view of the English midlands, however, both forms of settlement coalesced into what may be called the Celtic type. Instead of the large village we find the hamlet; instead of extensive arable fields, the restricted areas of the farm, the townland, or the petty township. Wherever in England hamlets and small townships appear as the prevailing type of settlement, Celtic influence is to be suspected. Within the three-field area we have already seen such, notably in the border counties, Herefordshire and Shropshire. If, however, Celtic influence determined the form of settlement and the size of the townships there, it did not prevent the superposition of a three-field system upon the arable. Since such a system was not Celtic, a further effort should be made to determine what was its Celtic correspondent. We have seen that a salient feature of the ancient agriculture of Scotland and Wales was the intermixture of the parcels of the tenants. Known in Scotland as runrig or rundale, this feature '■ Rents, and Survs., Ro. 934. I go ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS was there to be seen at the end of the eighteenth century in farms or townships which had not been improved. Although in Wales it was far less usual in the eighteenth century, or even at the end of the sixteenth, traces of it have been discerned at both periods. An item from the early seventeenth-century survey of Robeston in southwestern Wales has disclosed how rundale might arise, nipe parcels of land there having been divided among four tenants, with resultant intermixture; and a contemporary Sketch of a Townland, in Donegal, Ireland, showtng the Hol'dings of three Tenants. 1845. Map XI account of Pembrokeshire relates that such subdivision and inter- mixture were still more prevalent at an earlier time, attributing the phenomenon to the custom of transmitting land by gavelkind. From Scotland we learn that Scottish runrig was characteristic of farms held by co-tenants and of lands held by co-heirs. The reporters imply that it was an ancient custom, and excuse it as a concomitant in earlier days of the grouping of peasants in villages for purposes of defence. Since historical explanations were with them only remarks by the way, a further examination of the occasions which gave rise to runrig and of the antiquity of the phenomenon is desirable. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 191 Perhaps the most pertinent testimony on these points comes neither from Scotland nor from Wales, but from their more purely- Celtic neighbor, Ireland. This evidence, too, is of a more recent date than that hitherto cited. It is embodied in the report of the so-called Devon Commission, made to parhament in the middle of the nineteenth century.^ From this report came (apparently at second hand) the plan which Seebohm used to illustrate the intermixed strips of the tenants of an Irish townland.^ The plan itself, which is herewith once more reproduced, is instructive, but the accompanying explanation, which Seebohm omits, is still more so. It nms as follows : — " Fig. i shows the condition to which subdivision of holdings has brought a neglected townland in Donegal, containing 205 statute acres. The whole was occupied in one farm two genera- tions ago; it then became divided into two farms, and those two have been since subdivided into twenty-nine holdings, scattered into 422 different lots. The average arable quantity of each hold- ing is four acres, held in fourteen different parts of the townland; the average quantity of pasture per farm is three acres, held in lots in common. The largest portion of arable held by any one man is under eight acres; the smallest quantity of arable in any one farm is about two roods. The pasture being held in common cannot be improved. . . They had been in the habit of sub- dividing their lands, not into two, when a division was contem- plated, but into as many times two as there were qualities of land in the gross quantity to be divided. They would not hear of an equivalent of two bad acres being set against one good one, in order to maintain union and compactness. Every quahty must be cut in two, whatever its size, or whatever its position. Each must have his half perches, although they be ever so distant from his half acres. And this tendency is attributable to the conviction of these poor ignorant people, that each morsel of their neglected land is at present in the most productive state to which it can be brought." ' ' Evidence . . [on] the State of the Law and Practice in respect to the Occupa- tion of Land in Ireland, 4 vols. {Pari. Papers, 1845, vols, xix-xxii). ^ English Village Community, p. 228. ' Pari. Papers, 1845, xix, app., p. 59- 192 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS The most surprising thing in this account is perhaps not the excessive subdivision which resulted in 205 acres being cut up into 422 lots held intermixedly by twenty-nine tenants; it is rather that a compact farm had been thus transformed within two generations — a fact which Seebohm neglected to note. The cause of the subdivision and the manner in which it had been made are indicated in the quotation. Co-tenancy had been re- sponsible. This custom demanded that the heirs of a tenant receive equal parcels of each quality of his land, no matter how widely distributed the plots of the same quality may have been. The tangle of strips and plats shown on the map was the result. Such an account corresponds with what has already been noted relative to a Scottish farm or townland. There, too, co-heirs were often the tenants who held their lands in runrig. In both countries other tenants, not heirs of the original holder, must at times, through purchase or otherwise, have substituted them- selves for some of the co-heirs. But the principle is plain and the rapidity with which results could be achieved is startling. With such a tradition at work, both countries must necessarily at one time or another have had many a townland as much subdivided as were the open fields of the English midlands. Testimony to the prevalence of runrig in Scotland before the middle of the eighteenth century has been given. Something more should be added regarding Ireland. When the Devon Commission made its report in 1845 runrig had pretty nearly disappeared in certain parts of the island. The following quotations are respectively from Antrim, Down, and Londonderry, three counties of Ulster: — " Are there many farms near you held in rundale, or in com- mon ? " " Very few. . . . There are none on the Ballycastle estate. . . I do not know more than a dozen cases in my range. I consider it a very objectionable system." " Are there any persons holding in common or in joint ten- ancy ? " " Very few. I do not know any at present. I had a property some time ago under me which was in rundale." " In what state were the tenants ? " " Very bad indeed; but I divided it all." THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 93 " There are no farms held in rundale for some years past; I remember when it was the practice. [Yet] farms are a good deal subdivided among the members of a family which is a bad sys- tem." 1 In Roscommon there was more of rundale, and again we are told of the custom which produced it: — " Are there many farms held in common or in joint tenancy ? " " Yes, a good many." " What is the condition of the people occupying them ? " " Principally very poor persons. There are none others in my neighborhood. . . . [The system] is decreasing . . . it is very much the habit of the lower orders to divide their holdings, and give to their sons and sons-in-law a portion of their holdings, which leaves the holding little enough to support them and pay their rent. . . . " " The best account of the getting rid of nmdale was given by Marcus Keane, Esq., who was land agent for about 60^000 acres in or near county Clare. This large area was owned by twelve proprietors (principally by three), but was occupied by a great number of tenants. Few holdings were larger than fifteen acres. Since Keane had occasion to divide "many thousand acres," there must have been relatively more of rundale in county Clare than in the northeast of the island. His description of the situation and of his own activity is as follows: — " The farms were hitherto (and are up to this day, where the changes have not been made) held by tenants in several different divisions scattered over the district, some . . . being as far as a mile distant from other divisions. In some cases one man held so many as ten, twelve, or fourteen different divisions, and it has been my business to go through the estates and divide them out again, giving each tenant his holding in one lot of a convenient size and extending to the high road. . . . [At first there was opposition] but of late the people themselves wish to have the changes made. . . . There was one case of a large farm of 1000 acres held among 200 tenants nearly, and they gave me much opposition. It was two years before I completely satisfied them all and satisfied myself. . . . And among the tenants upon ' Pari. Papers, 1845, xix, nos. 130, 99, 131. ^ Ibid., xx, no. 430. 194 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS many thousand acres, whose farms I have so divided, I do not know more than two or three who complain." ' Proceeding, Keane corrected the testimony of the Rev. Timothy Kelly, who had stated that on one farm nineteen or twenty houses had been levelled. Again we perceive the extreme sub- division of a small township and the process by which it had come about. " The fact is, that only eleven families were turned out, and fewer than eleven houses were levelled. . . . only one [tenant] had so much as five acres; the remaining ten had [together] less than twenty acres. . . . The person who had five acres was never known as a tenant, but was the younger son of a tenant who had divided his land without permission . . . most of them were persons who had divided their holdings, or had been brought in by such persons without permission . . . the whole farm contains 185 acres of arable land besides bog, and there are left on it twenty-six tenants, making an average of less than eight acres to each; only one tenant of these has more than twelve acres of arable, and that man has not thirteen acres." ^ These descriptions of Irish farms in the nineteenth century confirm the Scottish reports of a half-century earher and assist in explaining them. In Ireland, as in Scotland, the farm or town- land was occupied by several tenants. The arable was in rundale, the parcels of a tenant being considerably scattered and inter- mixed with those of other tenants. What is new in the Irish account is the description of the rapidity with which the sub- division could be achieved. In the Donegal townland two generations had been sufficient to transform an undivided area of 205 acres into 422 separate lots held intermixedly by twenty- nine tenants. In the last quotation a townland of 185 acres was deprived of eleven tenants because they had, not long before, become tenants through unwarranted division. The witness from Roscommon commented on the frequency with which the " lower orders " divided their holdings among their sons and sons-in-law. The Irish evidence thus supplements the Welsh and Scottish by accounting for the appearance of rundale. Rundale was pri- 1 Pari. Papers, 1845, ^cxi, no. 1063 (14-16). ' Ibid., xxi, no. 1063 (4). THE CELTIC SYSTEM I9S marily due to the custom of transmitting land to co-heirs and giving to each a share in parcels of every quality. In a brief time this practice might transform a compact farm or townland into a congeries of ill-compacted holdings, and, once transformed, a farm had little chance of regaining its earlier semblance except by the falling-in of the leases or by the action of the landlord. Since in Scotland at the end of the eighteenth century runrig was considered ancient, it becomes pertinent to inquire whether transmission of holdings to co-heirs was a custom found in Celtic countries in earlier times. The Jacobean description of Pem- brokeshire notes that its effects were at that time beginning to disappear. Hence we turn with expectation to a Welsh survey of the Tudor period which gives suggestive information. The two following descriptions of holdings, which are typical, illustrate how a transmission to several co-heirs, presumably resultant in runrig, had recently taken place at Eskirmaen.^ To judge from the rents, which elsewhere in the survey are 2 d. the acre, the first holding must have contained about 35 acres, the second about 150: — " John ap griflith henry howell ap henry david ap meredydd griiEth lloyd Morgan ap meredydd ap griffith lloyd Isabell merch griffith ap meredydd ap griffith lloyd Maude merch griffith ap meredydd ap griffith lloyd GwenUian merch griffith ap meredydd ap griffith lloyd " Johannes dny ap gwilym Gwalter Redd ap meredydd ap gwilym Gwalter Johannes ap Jenn ap gwilym Gwalter howeU ap Jenfi ap gwilym Gwalter Griffith ap Morgan ap gwalter Gwalter ap Morgan ap gwalter Johannes ap Owen ap morgan David ap Owen ap morgan Gwalter ap Henry morgan tenent certas terras et tenementa ibi- >■ dem que nuper f ue- runt henrici ap griffith lloyd. tenent certas terras et tenementa que ■ nuper f uerimt Gwalter ap Jenfi Urn." This Tudor survey with its holdings in the occupation of several heirs finds a prototype in another and earlier Welsh survey — a rate-book of 8 Edward III, known as the Denbigh extent. 1 Rents, and Survs., D. of Lane, Portf. 12/4 (15-19 Hen. VII), £f. 27J, 286. 196 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Although this has regard primarily to the assessment of rents, the number of persons bearing the same family name who have become responsible for the return from a particular ledum, Gavelle, or Wele (the terms are used interchangeably) testifies to the widespread transmission of land to co-heirs. The structure of the villata ^ of Wigfair in the commot of Ysdulas will make this clear.2 The villata in question consisted of eight lecta, the first of which was divided into three smaller lecta or gavellae, while the first of these in turn comprised three gavellae or weles, each having several tenants. If we attend to only the first of the sub- divisions in each instance, the account runs as follows: — " Villata de Wyckewere cum Hamellis de Boydroghyn et Kyl- mayl consistebat temporibus Principum ante Conquestum in octo lectis unde vi lecta fuerunt in omnibus locis predictis. . . . Et de hiis vi lectis [i] unum lectum fuit penitus in tenura hberorum quod vocatur Wele Lauwargh' ap Kendelyk. [n] Secimdum lectum consistit videlicet due partes in tenura hberorum et tertia pars in tenura Nativorum quod lectum vocatur Wele Morythe. [in] Tercium lectum consistit videlicet due partes in tenura Hberorum et tertia pars in tenura Nativo- rum quod quidem lectiun vocatur Wele Peidyth' Mogh'. [iv-vi] Cetera tria lecta de predictis vi lectis fuerimt in- tegre in tenura Nativorum, unde primum lectum vocatur Wele Breynt' secundum lectum vocatur Wele Meyon et tercium vocatur Wele Bothloyn. [vii-viii] Et duo ultima lecta . . . fuerunt tantumodo in villa de Boydroghyn et consistunt penitus in tenura Nativorum, unde primum lectum vocatur Wele Anergh Guyrdyon et secundum lectum vocatur Wele Thlowthon. . . . * The mllata of fourteenth-century Wales was a far larger unit than the Irish villata or townland of the seventeenth century, referred to above (pp. 187-189). * Survey of the Honour of Denbigh, 1334 (ed. P. Vinogradoff and F. Morgan, London, 1914), pp. 210-212. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 97 [i] De primo lecto [Wele Lauwargh' ap Kendelyk] . . . fuerunt tria lecta seu tres gavelle videlicet [a] Wele Risshard ap Lauwargh' [6] Wele Moridyk ap Law' et [c] Wele Kandalo ap Lauwargh'. . . . [a] De Wele Risshard ap Lauwargh' fiunt tres ga- velle videlicet [i] gavella Madok ap Risshard [2] gavella Kendalo ap Risshard et [3] gavella Ken' ap Risshard. [i] Gronou ap Madok Vaghan, Eynon Routh' frater eius, Heilyn ap Eynon ap Risshard, Heilyn ap Gron' ap Ey- non, Bleth' et Ithel fratres eius et Heilyn ap Eynon Gogh' tenent ga- vellam Madok ap Risshard integre, redd, de Tung' inter se per annum . . . [8 d. -f- 12 d. -f 6 d. + 7f d. -I- 6 d.]. Et faciunt cetera servicia cum aliis liberis istius commoti in communi, de quibus patebit in fine istius commoti inter communes consuetudines &c." [ii] Seven men, of whom three are brothers of two others, hold Gavella Kendalo ap Risshard " integre." [iii] Thirteen men, of whom seven are brothers of five others and one is a guar- dian of one other, hold three-fourths of Gavella Ken' ap Risshard, and one- fourth is escheat to the lord. The first of the lecta was in the hands of the descendants of a certain Lauwarghe, from whom it derived its name. To his three sons, Risshard, Moridyk, and Kandalo, it had passed as three lecta or gavellae. The three sons of Risshard, named Madock, Kendalo, and Ken', had in turn received their father's share as three gavellae, and their cousins had inherited similarly. Thus 198 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS far there had been subdivision of the original lectum. Thence- forth these units allotted to the grandsons of Lauwarghe did not undergo formal subdivision. Yet each was by no means trans- mitted to a single heir; one of them might come to be held by as many as thirteen co-tenants. For the most part, each group of co-tenants, to judge from the names of its members, was de- scended from one of the grandsons of Lauwarghe, but for the future its bond of union was its joint responsibiUty for the rents and services due from the gavella which it now held " integre." In this manner did co-tenancy arise. Thus by somewhat devious ways the custom of transmitting a holding to co-heirs has been followed from Scotland and Ireland in the eighteenth century to Wales in the fourteenth. It is, as Seebohm has shown,' a usage apparent in early Celtig law, and from primitive times can scarcely have failed to influence the field system of a hamlet. The subdivision that went on in the Donegal township during two nineteenth-century generations had without doubt often occurred at an earher time in Ireland, in Scot- land, and in Wales. Probably the early usage was to make the allotments for a year only; such a custom, as we have seen, was still observed in Scotland as late as the eighteenth century. In Wales, however, permanent allotments may have taken place before the sixteenth century, since Owen, describing Pembroke- shire, declared that the extreme subdivision of the lands of the Welsh in that county was due to the custom of transmission by gavelkind, a custom itself made illegal by a statute of Henry VIII.2 Whatever may have been the time when the subdivision among co-tenants came to be made for periods longer than a year, there is Uttle doubt about the manner in which it took place. Each heir, the Irish account declares, demanded a portion of all quali- ties of land within the townland. As a result, small scattered parcels became the constituents of each allotment or holding. Certain of these parcels were of course arable, and so far as this was the case it was more or less necessary that the tenants should share in the ploughing; seldom can one of the co-heirs have had ' English Village Community, pp. 193-194. 2 ^f above, p. 187. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 1 99 enough horses or oxen for a plough team. Cooperative ploughing must, in short, have been a custom complementary to the sub- division of holdings among heirs. Further, in so far as the parcels were arable and ploughed with a common plough they would tend to be, not block-shaped, but long and narrow, for such was the shape of the unit ploughed by the heavy plough. Pasture subdivided among heirs might fall into parcels of any shape; arable would in its nature separate into strips like those described by the Scottish reporters to the Board of Agriculture. The appearance of r unrig can thus be explained as due to the custom of subdividing arable land of different qualities among co-heirs. This custom and its effects constitute the second of the distinctions which differentiate the field system of Celtic coun- tries from that of midland England. The first difference we have found in the markedly smaller size of Celtic townships. It has now become clear that the intermixed holdings of central England had one history, those of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales another. In the English midlands, virgates consisting of scattered strips had been fully formed when they were first described in the thirteenth century; after that they underwent little change through sub- division, the integrity of the virgate almost never admitting of fission into more than four parts. In Celtic countries, on the other hand, subdivision of a townland or a township sometimes first arose as late as the eighteenth century, and no limits were set to the lengths to w*hich it might go. The distinction is fundamental for the comprehension of runrig, and explains the greater flexi- bility of its open-field arrangements. In a general way, however, the furlongs of open arable field cultivated in accordance with Celtic nmrig presented an aspect not very different from that of an English midland township. We must therefore hasten to note two other distinctions between midland and Celtic arrangements, those, namely, which resided in the methods of tillage employed and in the grouping of the parcels of the tenants' holdings. Relative to Welsh tillage the Denbigh survey of 1334 twice mentions a three-course rotation of crops; but in both instances the reference is to demesne lands and the usage was apparently of 200 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS recent introduction since these lands had been " converted " to it.i Elsewhere in the survey there seems to be a tacit under- standing that old Welsh methods of tillage prevailed. What these had come to be in Pembrokeshire in 1603 Owen tells us: " The part of the sheere inhabited by the Welshmen as before is saied, foUowinge their forefathers husbandrie regard more the tUlage of oates then of the former graines. . . . [After folding cattle upon parcels of land from March to November] this lande they plowe in November and December, & in March they sowe oates in yt and have comonlie a goodlie Cropp, then they followe these landes with oates seaven eight or ten yeares together till the lande growe so weake&baren that it will not yeald the seede: and then let they that lande he for eight or ten yeares in pasture for their Cattell." ''■ Such tillage is like that of the Scottish outfield, and since there is no mention of continuously tilled infields we may conclude that it represents primitive Celtic usage. This tillage of Scottish or Welsh outfields was, of course, far removed from English midland methods, fo take crops of oats for a succession of years from land which had been prepared by a preliminary dressing of manure, and then to turn the exhausted fields over to fallow pasture for another succession of years, was unknown in the valley of the Trent. More like midland practices was the tillage of the Scottish infield. On this there was often a three-course rotation of crops; but the tillage differed in that the three crops were all spring grains, the cultivation Was continuous, and the absence of fallowing was compensated for by annual manuring. Such advanced practices must have been innovations in Scotland, probably not much antedating the seventeenth century.' In English counties which may in early times have had a Celtic field system this particular development probably 1 " Et sunt in dominico de terra arabili conversa in tress eisonas . . ," (Survey of the Honour of Denbigh, pp. 4, 230.) 2 Description of Penbrokshire, i. 61-62. ' An account of " two husbandlands " at Lymouth in Berwickshire, dated 1651, gives detail for the infield and the outfield separately; two other descriptions of fractional husbandlands at the same place, earlier by a half-century, make no dis- tmction between infield and outfield lands. Cf. Hist. MSS. Commission, MSS. of Col. D. M. Home (1902), pp. 220, 212, 214. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 20I seldom took place.' From the limitations of outfield tillage another escape, it seems, was devised and some approach to midland methods was made.^ But this happened so early and the traces of outfield cultivation in England are so slight that the contrast between Celtic and midland tillage, sharp as it was in reahty, is not very helpful in estimating Celtic influences in England. On this accoimt it is desirable to determine for the Celtic system the attribute which we have so often found pertinent in midland England — the grouping of the parcels of a tenant's holding within the arable area. In the fragmentary Welsh fields of the sixteenth century such grouping would tell us httle. Where only a few tenants had each a parcel or at best a few parcels in the common arable field, the location of the parcel or parcels imports Httle, since the tenant's reliance was upon his closes. If the grouping of parcels is to be important, the parcels must constitute the major part of the holding. So they did in Scotland and without doubt in Ireland. In the latter country, whenever townlands were subdivided each tenant desired a share of each quality of land. The location of the parcels of a holding was thus dependent upon the number and location of the different qualities of land to be divided. There can scarcely have been thought of dividing the townland into two or three equal compact fields. Indeed, it would have been impos- sible to do this unless nature had given to the township only two or three qualities of land in compact areas, and there would have been no occasion for doing it unless a fixed two- or three-course rotation of crops was to be established. The map of the Donegal townland, which has been reproduced above, shows no such divi- sion. The strips there assigned to three tenants were not scattered throughout the arable; in fact, in about one-half of it no one of the three tenants had any strip whatever. The field system evolved by Irish co-heirs and co-tenants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was clearly not that of the English midlands. In Scotland the succession of crops itself prevented the sub- division of the outfield into three equal parts. Only about 1 But cf. below, p. 232. 2 Cf. below, pp. 221, 225-226, 271. 202 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS one-tenth of it was brought from grass into tillage each year, the remaining tenths being similarly treated in succeeding years. It is possible, however, that the infield may have met with tripartite division, since a three-course rotation of crops was usual there. Yet no advantage could have been gained by the marking out of three compact areas. All crops were spring grains and no fur- longs lay fallow; rights of summer pasturage, the main pretext for the tripartite division of English midland fields, were non-exist- ent. Nothing would have been sacrificed if the furlongs which in any year were devoted to barley had not been contiguous. Nor do the documents divide Scottish infields by hard and inflexible boundaries into three equal compact areas; the parcels of a hold- ing are not, for example, assigned to East field. North field, and South field. Absence of division by fields thus becomes a con- comitant of runrig and one of its distinguishing marks. It will prove important when the question of Celtic influence in England arises. Terriers from counties where such influence is suspected should, if the suspicion be correct, show no grouping of their parcels by fields. Before the subject of Celtic field arrangements is dismissed, it should be pointed out that the subdivision of arable in the manner of runrig was not, at any one time or place, an essential charac- teristic of the system. If the explanation of the origin of runrig above given be correct, such subdivision was rather an accident. Farms, townships, townlands, which are found divided in the eighteenth century may well have been undivided a few genera- tions earlier. Landlords may at times, on the expiration of leases, have taken certain townships in hand and reconsolidated holdings; in the recompacted areas subdivision may once more have been permitted and the cycle again have run its course. Regarding Celtic countries, then, no sweeping statement can be made as to the precise aspect of the townships at any particular time. Some of them may have been entirely in the hands of one or two tenants, with no runrig manifest; others may have been much subdivided. The latter sort would in turn have assumed different aspects in so far as arable or pasture predominated. If the township were THE CELTIC SYSTEM devoted to pasturage, closes, more or less irregular in shapk would appear. In the Donegal townland the pasture was " hela\ in lots in common." The map shows that the plots of pasture in the occupation of a tenant were about as much severed one from another as were the strips. Yet there was less reason for their being so and remaining so, since pasture is not so diverse in its qualities as arable and there was no question of common ploughing. One can, therefore, imagine co-heirs subdividing a pasturage township on broader lines than they would have thought applicable to one largely arable. For these reasons it is not improbable that such a township sometimes broke apart into closes which may have been to some extent consolidated. Probably this is what happened at times in Wales. There in the sixteenth century township after township consisted of closes,^ those of a holding being frequently contiguous. The principality seems at that time to have been much more of a stranger to run- rig than was Ireland or Scotland, a circumstance best explained by the Tudor prohibition of transmission by gavelkind and by the hypothesis of an early predominance of pasture. In Scot- land, as we know, runrig prevailed in the first half of the eighteenth century, and the situation in Ireland was without doubt similar. The reason must have been that arable was, or had been, rela- tively more extensive in these countries than in Wales. If this supposition be correct, the different aspects assumed by the fields of Celtic countries are only natural developments of a flexible field system. We are left, accordingly, with four distinctive characteristics of the Celtic field system. In the first place, the open arable fields were small, a necessary corollary of the small size of the town- ships; in the second place, they frequently consisted of the intermixed strips of several tenants, but this intermixture was variable, originating with and depending upon the extent to which subdivision among co-heirs or co-tenants had proceeded; in the third place, the rotation of crops, so far as we know it, was not winter corn, spring corn, fallow, but something quite different, viz., a succession of spring crops followed by several fallow years, ' Archaeologia Cambrensis, Supplement of Original Documents, vol. i passim. 204 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS or an unbroken succession of three crops of spring corn upon land manured once every three years; finally, the tenants' parcels were not divided between two or three large arable fields, and there is no evidence that fields of this sort ever existed. The influence of such a system in England is not altogether easy to trace in the documents at hand. One of its four charac- teristics will be of little assistance. The continued subdivision of holdings, farms, or townlands among co-heirs or co-tenants, per- haps the most striking feature of runrig, is only occasionally perceptible in western England. In general it seems to have given way before the more rigid requirements of the English manorial system, which preferred that the rent of a holding should be paid by relatively few tenants. Nor have we many instances to show that the English counties which bordered Scot- land or Wales favored a rotation of crops different from that which prevailed in the English midlands. In this matter, too, non-Celtic influences were early dominant. The smaller size of Celtic townships is a feature which is re- flected in several English counties. Useful as it is, however, in tracing Celtic influence, it yields in utility to the last of the four characteristics, the arrangement of tenants' parcels in the arable fields. Where Celtic influence was felt, the parcels, we shall find, were closes, or irregular plats, or arable strips in runrig. Closes or plats may be expected to predominate in regions situ- ated near Wales and seemingly devoted early to pasturage; arable and the attendant runrig may be expected on the Scottish border. In no instance will there be a division of the arable into two or three large fields with a distribution of the parcels of hold- ings between them. Evidence on this point, so far as the terriers are concerned, wiU be largely negative. Only rarely wiU a terrier so clearly locate the strips of a bovate or a virgate as to render it probable that these strips were closely grouped within one part of the arable area of a township and hence not amenable to distribution throughout fields.' Elsewhere we shall have to be content with such negative testimony as results from the omission, in all available descriptions, of those field divisions ' Cf. below, pp. 208-210, 235-237, 245. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 205 which midland terriers more or less frequently contain. Hence it will never be possible to say regarding an English county, " Here is clearly the field system of Scotland or Wales or Ireland." We shall rather have to conclude: " Its fields lack the positive attributes of English midland fields, just as the fields of Celtic lands do. In their negative characteristics they are Celtic." In so far as this conclusion is convincing, Celtic influence in England will have been established. This prefaced, we may begin our examination of the field systems of such counties of northern and western England as did not fall within the bound- aries of the two- and three-field system. Since Scotland intro- duced us to the Celtic system, the counties of the Scottish border may occupy us first. CHAPTER VI The Influence of the Celtic System in England Northumberland The history of Northumberland open fields was nearly completed before the period of parliamentary enclosure. The reporters to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 declared that the parts of this county " capable of cultivation " were " in general well enclosed by live hedges," the only exceptions being " a small part of the vales of Breamish, Till, and Glen," where enclosure was then in progress. They noted further that lands which were or might be cultivated by the plough constituted two-thirds of the county, an area equal to nearly twice that of Oxfordshire.^ Of acts of parliament earlier than 1760 Slater found two relative to North- umberland, enclosing respectively 1300 and 1250 acres of arable; of acts later than that date he discovered but six.^ Two of the latter do not distinguish between arable and common, in three others the amount of arable to be enclosed is estimated at 380 acres altogether, while at Corbridge only did the open arable field amount to as much as 945 acres.* Parliamentary enclosure of common fields in Northumberland after 1760 is practically negligible. The earUer acts, those of 1740 and 1757, point to the comple- tion of an enclosure movement which had been in progress for a century and a half. Some information regarding this process may be obtained from the monumental History of Northumber- land, since the contributors, in their accounts of the various par- ishes, refer at times to the enclosing of the open fields. North ' J. Bailey and G. CuUey, General View of the Agriculture of the County of North- umberland (London, 1794), p. 50: " Lands which are or may be cultivated, 817,200 acres; mountainous districts improper for tillage, 450,000 acres." ^ English Peasantry, p. 294. The two earlier acts relate to Gunnerton (1740) and West Matfen (1757). ' A History of Northumberland (in progress by the Northumberland County History Committee, vols, i-x, Newcastle, etc., 1893-1914), x. 143. 206 CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 207 Middleton and Broomley, it appears, remained open until the beginning of the nineteenth century, undergoing enclosure in 1805 and 181 7 respectively.' To judge from what happened in several other townships, however, the movement was most pronounced during the seventeenth century and the early eighteenth. Not only were the open arable fields of Seaton Delaval already en- closed in 1610, but articles of agreement looking to the enclosure of Cowpen were drawn in 161 9, and the process was under way at Dilston in 1632.^ The tenants at Earsdon signed their articles in 1649, the same year in which the re-allotment at Pres- ton was completed.^ At Backworth the open fields disappeared in 1664.* The Ovington and Rennington enclosures, however, were delayed until the next century, the former being the work of commissioners appointed in 1708, the latter being asked for in 1707 but not carried out till 1720 and 1762.^ At Newton-by- the-Sea and Embleton the open fields disappeared a little later still, in 1725 and 1730 respectively.^ From such items, insuffi- cient as they are, it seems not improbable that the greater part of the common arable fields of the county had been enclosed by the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century. If so, Northumberland in its enclosure history resembles Durham, but differs markedly from the midlands.' Even in the sixteenth century the transformation of Northum- berland fields had begun. At Lesbury, on December 6, 1597, the tenants resolved at the manor court that they would, " be- tween this and the ist of March next, procure a survey of the South field in Lesbury, and that every tenant [should] have his land laid in several, and the same to dyke in convenient time after the said survey." ' Clarkson, who made a survey of the township of Tuggal in 1567, intimates that it was largely if not wholly ' Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, 1894, xvi. 138; History of Northumberland, vi. 143. 2 History of Northumberland, ix. 201, 325; x. 276. ' Ibid., viii. 244, n. 3; ix. 4. * Ibid., ix. 40. * Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, xvi. 129; History of Northumberland, ii. 159. ^ History of Northumberland, ii. 45, 98. ' Cf. above, p. 107, and Chapter IV. ' History of Northumberland, ii. 424. 2o8 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS enclosed. After explaining that it had been " divided at the greate suite of the Bradfords, who, havinge the moste parte of the towne in ther hands, wolde not agree with the other tennants in ther ancyent orders but with thretnings overpolled and trobled the said tennants in th' occupacion of ther grounde," he proceeds to consider measures " that his lordship may have also the said towne planted in the anncyent orders with the same number of tenant cottigers, smithe and cotterells, to have ther groundes severalhe enclosed by themselves, wherfor they dyd lye in com- mon, as well to the great strengthe of the towne as comodetie to them all." ' Thus cautiously were proposals for enclosure ad- vanced in the days of Elizabeth. Perhaps the best conception of the earlier condition of North- imiberland open fields and of the changes in progress at the end of the sixteenth century can be got from docimients relative to Long Houghton. In this township, which lay on the coast and was the property of the duke of Northumberland, a survey was undertaken in 1567 to rectify mistakes made in the rearrange- ment of a few years earlier. The introduction to the survey explains what had been the state of affairs before the rearrange- ment. " The arable lande ... [of Houghton Magna] lyeth for the moste parte nighe [the] sea syde, and is donged with the sea wracke . . . and, because of the greatnes of the said towne, the towne is now dividit in two partes, for that they were xxvii tenants besyde cotteagers, havynge alwayes and in every place every one tenant one rige by [him]sellfe, and so consequentlye, from ryge to ryge, that every tenant had one rige, then the first did begyn to have his a ryge for his Ipt agayne, and so by rygge and ryge it was in every place devidit amonge them to the great chardge and laboure of everye one of the said tenants: althoughe the same partition did geve to every tenant like quantite of all sortes of lande, yet it was so paynefeule to them and ther cattell that for the moste parte the said tennants did never manure ther ' Farther on he notes that "at the late partic[i]on . . . the churche landes nowe in the tennure of Rolland Foster were layed altogether," and that certain crofts contained " xii rigges before the particion of the towne " {History of Northumber- land, i. 3Sr, 353). CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 209 grounde threwgly, wherby they did fall in great povertie; and also ther severall grounde, called their oxen pasture . . . was in breaffe tyme over eatyng and maide baire of fedyng." 1 Such is the picture of an open-field township in which the dis- tribution of parcels throughout a large area had become intoler- able. To relieve the situation an unusual remedy had been devised. A short time before the survey of 1567 the arable area had been divided into a northern and a southern part, and the parcels of each husbandland (as a holding was called) had been confined to one or the other of these two divisions. To accomplish such an alignment parcels had been exchanged but not to any extent consolidated, as a later survey of 1614 makes clear. One of the fully described furlongs of this last survey, called " Bastie lands," is transcribed by the historian of the parish. In it each of thirteen husbandlands on the south side then had parcels, which usually contained about half an acre apiece.^ Similar divisions of townships into two parts seem to have been not infrequent in Northumberland.' A survey of AckUngton made in 1702 shows that one had there been accomplished, divid- ing the 17I farms into 85 on the north side and 9 on the south side.* At Lesbury, which adjoins Long Houghton, a division was proposed when the latter township was divided, and the matter was put into the hahds of the surveyor who has already been quoted. In this case, however, he pronounced against the division, chiefly on the ground that an equally good water supply could not be had for both parts. His account begins as follows: " It wer not good that this towne wer devyded into thre [farther 1 History of Northumherlarid, ii. 368. * Ibid., 378. The survey of 1567 was undertaken to adjust minor details. In the earlier division the tenants of the north side had got the poorer lands, and the boundary between the common pasture of the farms on the one side and the arable lands of the farms on the other was unsatisfactory. ' At Rock before 1599, according to a map of that date, there had been a re- arrangement of farms as follows (ibid., 128): — " BeloQginge to s Fannes on the North Bame in arable, meadow, and pasture, 214 acres « " 7 " " " south side " " « " " 301 " « " s " " " moore 200 " « " 7 " ' " moore 280 " " . * Ibid., V. 372. 2IO ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS on he says " two "] severall townes, althoughe yt ys a greate towne, many tenants and cotteagers, every tenant having his lande lyeinge rigge by rigge and not in flatts nor yet in parcells of grounde by yt selfe, so that therby the labor of the tenants and their cattell ys muche more, to the greate dystruction of the said tenants." In verification of this description, a survey of 1614 tells of a furlong (South Brig haugh) in the West field which contained 4 acres, 3 rods, 26 perches, in eighteen strips held by fourteen tenants.^ If we inquire what field system held together the widely- scattered parcels of Long Houghton before the rearrangement in the middle of the sixteenth century, the answer must be sought in a liiap of 16 19, which is closely associated with the survey of 1 6 14. Although the township had by this time been divided into a northern and a southern half, the boundary between the halves crosses what was clearly an older division into fields. These fields were three and they were unequal in size. Old and new arrangements by fields and by halves distributed the unen- closed arable as follows: — South field, 99 acres on the North side, 276 acres on the South side West field, 181 acres on the North side, none on the South side East field, 242 acres on the North side, 302 acres on the South side.^ Although there is here the suggestion of an early three-field arrangement, the inequahty in area between the fields is a ques- tionable circumstance. Especially great is the discrepancy be- tween the 181 acres of the West field and the 544 acres of the East field. Furthermore, if the midland division was known and after the rearrangement did not lose favor (there is no indication that the strips were consolidated or the method of tillage changed at the time), it seems strange that within fifty years three new fields had not taken form on the north side and three on the south. Of such, however, there is no trace in the map of 1619, which 1 History of Northumberland, ii. 418, 425. ^ Ibid., map facing p. 368. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 211 clings rather to an antiquated division. We are thus led to con- clude that no three-field system prevailed at Long Houghton in 1619, and that the three " fields " of them ap were never really such, but only convenient topographical names for different parts of the township's arable. To get further information regarding the possible existence of a three-field system in Northumberland, we turn to other sur- veys made in the days of Elizabeth or James I. Many of them, accompanied by maps, exist in the archives of the earl of North- umberland, but the authors of the county history have seldom transcribed the information which might be at once decisive. They have not, except in one instance, given the distribution of the acres of the tenants' holdings throughout the fields, an omis- sion which greatly increases the difficulties of the investigator at this point.i A notable feature about several of the maps and schedules which describe the townships belonging to the duke is their in- sistence upon a division of the arable into three or four fields. Round the village of Acklington, a map, probably made in 1616, shows three fields, North, South, and East, but it gives no areas.^ The plan of Clarewood and Halton Shields, dating from 1677, pictures two groups of three fields but is equally reticent about their areas.' On the Tuggal map of about 1620, what remained of the fields amounted to 71 acres in South field, 64 acres in Whittridg field, and 118 acres in Hedglaw field.* At Rock, too, according to the map of 1599, there were " remaines " of three fields — Earsley field containing 84 acres, Rockley field 70, Arksley field 131.^ The survey of Bilton, completed in 1614, assigns to three fields, also shown on a map of 1624, areas which give to South field 176 acres, to East field 138, and to North field ' Unfortunately, I have been unable to examine the documents at Alnwick Castle. ^ History of Northumberland, v. 376. " Ibid., X. 389. Similarly, there is record of three fields, North, Middle, and Low, at Ovington, but no information about their respective areas or the appor- tionment of the tenants' holdings {Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, 1894, xvi. 129). * History of Northumberland, i. 342. To Whittridg field should probably be added 26 acres in Townsend flat and 17 acres in Glebeland. ' Ibid., ii. 128. 212 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 216.1 At Rennington, where the fields seem to have suffered no diminution from their original size, there were, in 1618, 89 acres in South field, 248 in West field, 146 in North field, 6 in Orchard, and 29 in Barelaw field.^ It will be noticed that at Bilton and Rennington, those townships in which the fields were most intact, the areas of the three fields were distinctly unequal. Other townships divided their arable into four parts. At Shilbottle the fourth part, which was smaller than the others, apparently had no close connection with them. It was knoAvn as " The Fower Farmes called the Head of Shilbotle " and con- tained 200 acres; but its four tenants had together only 56 acres of pasture lying in the other three fields. The latter were known as North, Middle, and South, their areas being 347, 268, and 350 acres respectively.^ Were it not for the " Fower Farmes," this division would wear somewhat the aspect of a three-field town- ship. Elsewhere the four fields bore conventional names, but their acres were unequal. The Lesbury fields, which, as we have seen, were ia 1567 proposed for division, numbered four in 1614. Of these the West field, not shown on a map of ten years later, con- tained 1 10 acres, while the other three. Northeast field. East field, and South field, were much larger, comprising respectively 395, 246, and 287 acres.^ No combination here would evolve into anything like a three-field arrangement except the union of West field with East field, and even this, apart from the situation of the two, does not obviate considerable discrepancy. SHghtly more symmetriccil were the fields of South Charlton in 1620. Three of them included meadow, and the subdivision gave to North field 142 acres of arable and 11 of meadow, to East field i22f acres of arable, to Middle field 585 acres of arable and 38 of meadow, to West field 147 acres of arable and 8| of meadow.^ By combining the arable of East field and Middle field we should get a total only greater by about thirty acres than the area of each of the other fields, a not impossible three-field arrangement. At Lucker the four fields were less amenable to a three-field 1 History of Northumberland, 451-452, 456. 2 ibjd., 156-157. ' Ibid., V. 416, 427, 429 n. * Ibid., ii. 416 sq. ' Ibid., 307. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 21 3 grouping, nor could they well have maintained themselves as four fields. Their names, too, were imusual. To Quarrell field were assigned 72 acres, to West field 97, to Bank quarter 158, and to Gawkland quarter 57.^ Here, as in the maps and ter- riers of several other townships, the same phenomena appear. Despite what superficially seems to be a simple three- or foixr- field arrangement, the inequality in the apportionment of the arable among the fields raises the question whether the subdivi- sion has mofe than topographical significance. There is, of covirse, a simple criterion in such cases, one to which resort has often been had. It is the distribution of the acres of a holding among the township fields. Only the inade- quacy of the transcripts in the otherwise elaborate county his- tory makes necessary inferences from other data. Yet a few terriers of the desirable kind are discoverable. The best refers to Rennington, a township in which, as has been noted, the West field contained 248 acres, the North field 146, and the South field 89. Since the terrier is a part of the survey which states these areas, one would expect some correspondence be- tween them and the apportionment of the acres of the holding in question. Yet scarcely any appears, the terrier assigning to the three fields 21, 2, and 10 acres respectively.^ West field and South field thus receive more than their due, while North field is markedly slighted. The terrier of a holding at Elford, made in 1 History of Northumberland, i. 234. 2 Ibid., ii. 157. The specifications of " Trestram Philpson's farme " run as follows: • — Acres Roods Perches House and garth I 2 38! South field arrable 10 o 37J Orchard " o i 8} West field " 21 o si North field " 8 3 iij Barlawe feild " 2 o o| In the West feild meadowe 2 i iii In Twenty acres I 3 3oi In Cowde close ,- 2 3 32 In Gowlands Croke poole i . i i6f In the Meadow Dayles I 3 20I In the Orchard Layninge o 2 i6i Eight gaytes in the Oie pastures 19 2 28 Some of acres 74 3 8J 214 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 162 1, has similar characteristics. There the arable lay largely in three " quarters," North, East, and West, doubtless the prin- cipal divisions of the township fields; yet to North quarter were assigned 8 acres, slightly more than were given to the other quarters together, these receiving respectively 3^ and 3^ acres.^ From Corbridge come particulars of the distribution of the demesne acres among four fields. In West field were 26 acres, in East field 112, in North field 84, and in Little field 25.^ Since in the detailed list of " riggs " there is no separation of Little field from North field, it is possible that the two were tilled as a unit. If so, this composite field becomes as important as East field, but the insignificance of West field is only the more emphasized. Finally, the terrier descriptive of a holding at Great Felton in 1585 is concerned with only an East field and a West field. None the less, it fails to divide its acres evenly between the two, assigning to one 15 acres and to the other 5.' In general, we are thus led to conclude that the acres of a North- umberland holding, whether apportioned to two, three, or four fields, were not disposed as they would have been in a normal township of the midland area. In some Northumberland terriers of Tudor and Jacobean days there is discernible a tendency to group fields along with other ' History of Northumberland, i. 287. This holding of John Chaundler is thus described: — Acres Roods Perches " The house and scite o o 30 Six butts of arable land lying among other lands in a croft there 2 i zo Fowertene several parcells of arable land which lie on the North Quarter containing 8 o 35 Thirteen parcells of arable land lying on the East Quarter ... 3 3 30 Other parcels in West Quarter 3 2 o A small parcel lying in East Meade o o 35 Another small parcel o o 20 3 beaste gates in the Ox Pastures Total l8 o 2 " ^ Ibid., X. 124-130. ' Ibid., vii. 252. Besides the tenement and a croft containing a half-acre, the holding comprised: — " 2 closes in the east field of Felton . . . together of 12 acres 1 1 selions in the same field ' super moores pett ' of 2 acres At Cbamley gappe 1 acre In the west field parcels called ' Botoos peace,' ' le lawe' et ' le hedlandes/ together of s acres z close of pasture . . . called ' le birkeclose ' of 8 acres." CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 21 5 divisions of the arable area. Whether this be the fault of the maker of the survey or whether it points to the minor importance of fields is difl&cult to say. A Brotherwick terrier from the sur- vey of 1585 suggests the latter explanation.^ Most of the seUons (excluding those recently held by Thomas Pinne) lay in North field or in South field or adjacent to the " Lang-rigges." If all those in the list which fall between North field and South field be looked upon as lying in North field, the total much over- balances the number left for South field. If, on the other hand, the two fields stand independently toward the other areas, no three-field grouping is apparent, even if " Lang-rigges " be exalted into a field. A tendency to neglect division by fields in enumerating the par- cels of a holding appears in one of the Northumberland surveys which has been printed in full.^ The survey is concerned with the open fields of two townships, Tynemouth and Preston, but it is incomplete. Only such fields as are about to be re-allotted receive attention. It is possible that all the unenclosed arable at TjTiemouth was redistributed, but of this there is no certainty. If it was, only two fields. North and South, existed there and they were somewhat unequal in area.' The Preston fields are confessedly not described ia full. Only " so much as was now presented to be divided " appears in the total, which comprised ' History of Northumberland, v. 258: — 16 selioDS of arable land in the North field 14 south of the " Lang-rigges " 4 in " Whyte-lees " 3 " super le Lang-rigges " 2 " by the Hall-well " 10 in the South field 5 " iuxta le snake hole " 12 " in the Crokes, formerly held by Thomas Pinne ''. 2 " The Terraire or Accompt of Measure of certain Lands lying within the Territories of the Mannor of Tinemouth and Preston, 1649,'' Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, 1887, xii. 173 sq. ' " Of the Particon of Tinemouth — Acres Roods Perches The Quantity of the South Feild of Tynemouth i88 i 9 The Brocks contains 30 2 20 In the North Feild on the upper side of Monkseaton way 51 i 32 In the North feild more East from that and more Northerly 206 i 30 " 2l6 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 1832 acres in North field, 1375 in South field, and i6i| in Miller Leazes. This area was re-aUotted to five copyhold " farmes," each containing 53 acres, but the former relation of these farms to the fields is not indicated. Such relationship is stated only for certain old freeholds, which are, however, not very satisfac- torily described.^ In them something is usually allotted to West field and to Miller Leazes, but there is considerable obscurity about North field; it will be noticed that, of the many rood par- cels that were " next the Rake," only one is located in that field. For the most part the strips are assigned to such areas as Dikan Dubb or the Long Dike, and it is impossible to group them by fields. If terriers hke these be typical of the Northumberland surveys which were made in such considerable mmibers prepara- tory to the re-allotment of holdings in the early seventeenth cen- tury, the surveys either contain Httle usefid information about fields or show the acres of the holdings irregularly distributed. It may be urged, however, that we are here dealing with rela- tively late field arrangements, that in Northumberland the old system, whatever it was, had by this time begun to decay. The very ease with which a re-allotment of parcels was brought about, as at Long Houghton before 1567, testifies, one may say, to the laxity of the old ties. Laxity there pretty clearly was, and it ' For three of them the details run as follows , the areas being in roods: — Location in Preston Field Robert Ottway's Freehold Robert Spearman's Freehold George Millbum's Freehold In the West FeUd In Shedletch 1, I and a butt, 4, 4, and 2 banks 1.3 2, I and a bank 1, i, i, L, 1, 1,1 short headland 6,3,1 3, r, 1, X, 2, 4, 1 I headland 3, I headland 3 I 2, 2 riggs i, 1, 1, t, I 3 r, 3, I, I, 2 i, 1, 1 s butts X I I and a meadow Spott 4 3 butts 6 Att Moor Dike r, I and a bank Att Dikan Dubb 4 6 {in the North field), 2, I, J, I lee rigg 2 3 Att Morton Way In the watery Reens In the Burnetts In the miller Leazes In the Garland meadow. IntheHundhiU In the New Close CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 21 7 only remains to inquire whether earlier evidence hints at the strict observance of more inflexible rules and divisions. Numerous terriers of Northimiberland holdings earlier than the sixteenth century are to be found in the feet of fines and in the monastic cartularies, especially in the record of a survey of the lands of Hexham abbey. All these documents agree in showing the prevalence of intermixed strips,* which were often no more than one-fourth of an acre in size. They agree further in seldom referring to fields, and are almost unanimous in never dividing the strips of a holding between two, three, or four fields. The parcels in question are assigned to divisions which in a midland area would have been called furlongs, shots, or quarentines, but in Northumberland were usually designated rigs, dales, flats, laws, and occasionally even fields. A terrier of 1479, which describes a husbandland containing 27 acres of arable attached to a tenement at ChoUerton, iUustrates most of these pecuharities.^ It is ' At " Mulefen " the 12 acres which accompanied a messuage lay in 11 parcels; at " Copum " two tofts were transferred along with 15 acres in 8 parcels; at " Berewik et Bitewurth " 10 acres were divided into 6 parcels (Ped. Fin., 180-3-22, II Hen. Ill; 180-4-61; 19 Hen. Ill; 1 80-5-107, 30 Hen. III). Two deeds trans- ferring 7 and 12 acres at " Thrasterston " enumerate 7 and 16 parcels respectively (Chartidary of Brinkburn Priory, Surtees Soc, 1893, pp. 43, 45)- At Thockrington, about 1280, 20 acres of arable lay in 33 small parcels {History of Northumber- land, iv. 401). 2 James Raine, The Priory of Hexham (Surtees Soc, -^ vols., 1864-65), ii. 30. The description runs as foUows: — " Et idem [Hugo Colstane] tenet xxvii acras terrae arabilis pertinentes tenemento praedicto, quarum ii acrae et dimidia acra ex parte australi rivulae de Eriane . . Et super le Kilnflate ex parte occidentali dimidia acra " " Horslawspule dimidia acra Schothalghbankys " " Nitlire dimidia acra " " Overschotlaubankes dimidia acra " " le Blaklaw ex parte oriental! ejusdem dimidia acra Et ex parte occidentali ejusdem i acra " " " orientali le Lens . . . ane i roda *• " " orientali Bronslauemedoue i roda Et super Bronslawflate ex parte occidentali dimidia acra Et ex parte boriali Bronslawmedoue buttando super eodem iii rodae Et super le Canonflatte . . . i acra et dimidia " " " lez buttes iuxta le dyk . . . dimidia acra " " " lez hevedlandes de Brouneslawflatte . . . i roda Et ad capud del Maynflatt . . . dimidia acra Et ex parte australi le Crosse . . . i roda Et super Holmersbank . . . dimidia acra Et in Harlawhop buttando super le Messeway dimidia acra Et ex parte occidentali iuxta le Harlaw dimidia acra 2l8 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS closely followed by a similar terrier describing a holding of 28 acres, the parcels of which are located with the same explicitness in the same field divisions.^ Apparently the husbandlands of a Northumberland township in the fifteenth century shared in all furlongs after the manner described at Long Houghton a century later,2 and this without reference to any three-field arrangement. In contrast with the rather impressive bulk of negative evi- dence in the early terriers pointing to the non-existence of the midland system in Northumberland, a few items seemingly sug- gestive of it deserve notice. In a terrier of a half-carucate at Whalton the 52 J acres "in campo ejusdem villae" are described in such order that, if the first two items be added together, four thirteen-acre groups result. It is noteworthy, however, that the name of only one field appears, that the half-carucate consisted of five relatively large blocks of land rather than of scattered strips, and above all that four of these blocks lay to the west of the village, two of them being carefully located in the West field. ^ Et super le Mesiway super eandem i roda Et ex parte orientali le lonynghed i roda Et super Aldchestre ex parte australi iii rodae Et ex parte occidental! super le Stobithom i roda Et super Morelaw ex parte orientali ejusdem . . . dimidia acra Et ex parte boriali de Dueldrigge dimidia acra " " " orientali le Smythehopside dimidia acra Et in medio Craustrige dimidia acra Et ex parte orientali de Westraustrige i acra Et super Estraustrige ex parte occidentali i roda Et ex parte orientali Fartirmerethome . . . i acra " " " australi terrae praedictae i roda Et inter Faltermere et lez Merlpottes i acra Et ex parte boriali lez Merlpottes i roda Et in medio Waynrig iii rodae Et ex parte orientali le Brereryg i roda ** ** " orientali lez Hudesrodes i acra Et inter lez Kornhilles i roda Et in medio le Milnrig dimidia acra Et super Fulrig iii rodae Et in Swynbume-feld ex parte boriali le crosse i acra.'' ^ Raine, Priory of Hexham, ii. 32. 2 Cf. above, p. 208. 5 Raine, Priory of Hexhanty ii. 39. The description runs as follows: — "Tenent etiam in campo ejusdem villae dimidiam carucatam terrae, viz., Iii acras terrae et dimidiam, quanim Super Lindeslawe ex parte occidentali ejusdem villae iacent iiii acrae Et super le Flores ex parte occidentali prope dictas acras ix acrae Et in le Westfeld inter Walwyk et Leverchild xiii acrae vocatae le Burnflatt Ex parte australi molendini ibidem xiii acrae Et super le Farnelaw ex parte orientali villae ejusdem xiii acrae.'' CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 219 These circumstances scarcely accord with midland arrangements. No more do the names and the allotment of acres in another thirteenth-century terrier, dated 30 Henry HI.' Of the twelve acres which, according to this, accompanied a toft and were subtracted from four bovates at Billingworth, 4I are referred to East field; but the assignment of 2 1 to a field called Hypelawe and of 5i to a field called Horchestres-and-Bereacres destroys the symmetry of any three-field arrangement, quite apart from the fact that the names are unusual. Three early charters hint at two-field usages but without giv- ing definite assurance. At Whittonstall six acres were in the thirteenth century described as " duas in tofto et crofto . . ., et in campo apud orientem iuxta spinam dimidiam acram, et iuxta viam . . . dimidiam acram, et in campo versus occidentem iii acras." ^ A division which thus gives to the East field one acre and to the West field three acres is corrected in a Cramling- ton grant of the twelfth century, according to which thirty acres were so situated that there were " xv in una parte viUae et xv in aha"; ' still, these vague localities are not fields. An early grant which does locate its dales in two fields transfers 14! acres at Leighton, describing them as foUows : — " In campo occidentali totas iUas duas mikel dales et totas illas duas fair dales, quas Syuuardus et Robertus filii Stephani tenuerunt, cum toto prato in transverse marisci et totam Thirndale Roberti cum prato et totam Halledale Syuuardi cum prato et in campo orientali totas Ulas duas Horthawedales quas praedicti homines tenuerunt et ii dales totas in Prestesflat quas Thomas de Clenil tenuit. . . . " ■» ' " Quatuor acras et unam rodam que iacent in campo qui vocatur Estfeld . . . duas acras et dimidiam que iacent in campo qui vocatur Hypelawe . . . quinque acras et unam rodam que iacent in campo qui vocatur Horchestres et Bereacres " (Ped. Fin., 180-5-113). ^ History of Northumberland, vi. 182, n. 3. ' Ibid., ii. 226 n. * []■ T. Fowler], Chartidarium Abbathiae de Novo Monasterio (Surtees Soc, 1878), p. 8s. 220 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Two fields are here, but the chronic irregiilarity of division is also present, especially so far as the lands of Syuuardus and Robert are concerned. Thus the early two-field evidence for the county is hardly more satisfactory than the three-field evidence has proved. From all the Northumberland testimony relative to fields only one item points clearly to three-field husbandry. This occurs in an accoxmt, written in or about the year 1596, of the expulsion by Robert Delavale, Esq., of the tenants of Hartley and Seaton Delaval, two townships near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.^ In both, it is stated, each dispossessed tenant had been able to tiU " 60 acres of arable land, 20 in every feild." Such even division of holdings among three fields is something hitherto not met with in the Northumberland evidence, and seems at first sight to con- stitute straightforward and convincing testimony that a three- field system existed in the county. Before this conclusion is admitted, however, the seemingly decisive passage should be more closely examined to see whether it admits of any other interpretation. In the first place, the assignment to these townships of hus- bandlands precisely similar in size and divided in precisely the same manner suggests that the writer, whose subject was in no way related to field systems, was mentioning the tenants' hold- ings only incidentally and in a very general manner. Even in the most typical of midland townships the acres of the copyholds were not divided with this precision among the fields. If we ask for more specific evidence about the subdivision of a copy- hold at Hartley or at Seaton Delaval, we find that the editor of the county history has been obHged to make inferences in the one terrier of which he gives an account. At Hartley, William Taylor had, it appears, 105 acres which lay in three groups of shots or furlongs. One group was assigned to the South field and one to the North field, but either the third group was not assigned to any field or the attribution is missing through injury to the manuscript.'' Although the editor conjectures that a West field was in question, he gives no reason for his belief, nor ' History of Northumberland, ix. 124, 201. ' Ibid., 122. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 221 does he make note, as he so easily might have done, of the areas of the parcels which fell within each group. Even at Hartley, therefore, we are left with something of the uncertainty which has thus far attended Northumberland maps, terriers, and surveys. A better reason than this ambiguity, however, for thinking that the Hartley and Seaton Delaval statements do not unques- tionably imply the existence of a three-field system is the possi- bility that the author, speaking as it were parenthetically, may have been referring to a three-course rotation of crops. This method of tillage, as is explained below, might appear where the open-field furlongs were not grouped into three compact fields.' From occasional items there is reason to think that in Northum- berland a three-course rotation was employed, at least upon de- mesne lands. Nine large consolidated parcels at Hextold were in 1232 so tilled that 515 acres were sown with wheat and rye, 78 with oats, and 50 were " de terra wareccanda." ^ Although the division here into three parts was not precise, it was approxi- mate. Regarding other demesne lands no uncertainty exists, and it is furthermore obvious that they might lie in common. At Hepscott, for instance, an inquisition describes 88 acres of demesne " de quibus tertia pars iacet in warecto et pastura eiusdem warecti nihil valet per annum quia iacet in communi." ' Though we have no corresponding information regarding the rotation of crops which was usual upon tenants' land, it may well have been at times a three-course one. If so, the Hartley and Seaton Delaval statements perhaps refer to such a situation, and the term " field " is used carelessly in place of the more exact " seisona." If this seem an over-refinement of explanation, and if it be urged that a three-course rotation upon tenants' lands was not far removed from a three-field system,^ the extent of the negative evidence from Northumberland must once more be insisted upon. Similar avoidance of three-field indications is not characteristic 1 Cf. below, pp. 331-325. " Raine, PHory of Hexham, ii. 96. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 2 (17). * The difference was, however, pronounced. Cf. below, pp. 321-325. 222 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS of the testimony from a midland county. Even if it be admitted that a three-field system at times appeared in Northumberland, it seems equally clear that an ahen influence early made itself felt and differentiated the county from its southern neighbors. A ready conjecture would designate such an influence as Celtic, and evidence supporting the surmise is not wanting. One aspect of this evidence is the character of the terms used in describing Northumberland open-field strips and field divisions. At Long Houghton the parcels lay " rigge by rigge," ^ and some terriers enumerate " riggs " without giving areas.^ The descrip- tion, further, of a husbandland at Chollerton, which has been already quoted, shows how frequently the names of the furlongs ended in " rig." ^ This nomenclature was, of course, the sub- structure of Scottish runrig. More decisive, however, than terminology is the appearance in Northumberland of the Scottish method of tillage. A descrip- tion of this in 1599 refers to what was perhaps at that time the persistence of an antiquated usage, but it is particularly instruc- tive as indicating the character of primitive husbandry in the county. It occurs in an account of the queen's demesne lands at Cowpen, but relates as well to the lands of freeholders and lessees : — " At the layenge forth of any decayed or wasted come feilde, and takinge in any new feildes of the common wastes in liewe thereof, everie tenaunte was and is to have so much lande in everie new fielde as everie of them layde forth in everie wasted or decayed corne feilde, or accordinge to the rents of everie tenaunte's tenement in such place and places as did befall everie of them by their lott; and so hath everie of the quene's tenauntes within the towne of Cowpon aforesaide, as well leassors, ten- naunts at will, as freeholders, contynewed the occupacion'of aU their arable lands by partinge by lott as aforesaide; and that after the layenge oute of everie wasted corne feilde within the 1 Cf. above, p. 208. 2 For example, the terrier of the demesne lands at Corbridge {History of North- umberland, X. 124). ' Cf. above, p. 217. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 223 feldes and territories of Cowpon aforesaide, everie so wasted and layde oute corne felde nowe is and ever was reputed and used as the quene's common wastes there are, until the same lately layde oute corne feildes or &^y of them be by generall consente of neighbours taken in, parted, and converted to arable lande or medowe again; . . . [many tenants] afifirme they alwayes so had used and enjoyed the same parted landes t}Tne out of mynde of man." ' This description might well apply to the Scottish outfield, described at length in the preceding chapter. In Northumber- land, as in eighteenth-century Scotland, large parcels of land were temporarily reclaimed from the waste, reduced to tillage for a series of years, and then allowed to revert to waste again until they had in a measure recovered their fertility. In a newly-improved area each tenant had a share similar to that which he had had in the " decayed come feilde " simultaneously " layde forth " or abandoned. Just how this procedure went on is illustrated by the following provision of a Corbridge court roU of 1594: "Item it is agreed at this courte for the devideinge of the land in Dawpathe, that betwen this and the next fawghe it shalbe equaUie parted by the consience of xii men." ^ Apparently the re-allotment of a furlong about to be brought once more under cultivation was entrusted to a com- mittee of villagers. Such a method of tillage accounts for the dispersion of a tenant's strips and explains the persistence of such dispersion. Of immediate interest, however, is the probable relation of this practice to a three-field arrangement. Unless the arable area of a Northumberland township is to be thought of as en- tirely surrounded by a tract of waste, the permanent division of the arable into three equal compact parts is difficult to imagine in connection with the type of cultivation just described. As- sume, for instance, a three-field arrangement of the arable, with the waste l)dng in one part of the township — an arrangement usual in the midlands. Assume further that a furlong was to be " decayed," or allowed to drop out of cultivation. If this furlong 1 History of Northumberland, ix, 324. ' Ibid., x. 270. 224 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS were adjacent to the waste, it might be replaced by another contiguous to the field in such way that the integrity of the latter would in a measure be maintained. But if the furlong lay in a field remote from the waste, how could it be replaced without destroying the compactness of the field in question ? Furthermore, the abandonment of furlongs within the arable area would under any circumstances make impossible the per- sistence of compact arable fields. Any field would always con- tain " decayed " areas, and the term " field " could at best be appKed only to one-third of the entire area of the township, composed in turn of certain furlongs under cultivation and of others abandoned for a series of years. Since such a field would be very different in appearance and in mode of tillage from a midland field — would, in short, be a " seisona " — there is no reason why the term " field " should have been used in North- umberland with its midland significance. Its non-appearance in the documents, or its use in them merely to indicate topograph- ically a part of the township or to designate one of the furlongs, at once becomes explicable. The infrequent use of the term in early charters, furthermore, is a guarantee that the field arrangements of the midlands did not extend to Northumber- land. That a system of Celtic type long persisted in the county is apparent from certain evidence offered before chancery in a suit relative to lands in North Middleton as they were prior to their enclosure in 1805. The fourteen ancient farms, which comprised about iioo acres of arable, meadow, and pasture, were thus described: " These farms are not divided or set out, the whole township lying in common and undivided. . . . The general rule of cultivating and managing the lands within the township has been for the proprietors or the tenants to meet together and determine how much and what particular parts of the lands shall be in tillage, how much and what parts in meadow, and how much and what parts in pasture, and they then divide and set out the tillage and meadow lands amongst themselves in proportion to the number of farms or parts of farms which they are respectively entitled to within the township, and CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 225 the pasture lands are stinted in the proportion of 20 stints to each farm." ^ Although by the nineteenth century the bound- aries between arable, meadow, and pasture may have become more flexible than they were at an earUer time, there can be Kttle doubt that the method of allotment here described was a survival of the principle that all land newly taken under cultivation should be equitably apportioned among the husbandlands. If it be impossible to look upon Northumberland tillage as identical with that of the midlands, there is, on the other hand, no difficulty in seeing how it could transform itself into the latter with ease. Were the cultivation of the arable in any township to become more intensive, the period of years during which a furlong could be allowed to revert to waste would have to be decreased. The ratio might become two years of productivity to one of fallow; ^ with such a rotation once adopted, only the laying together of the fallow furlongs would be wanting to make the system one of three compact fields. If it may be assumed that this step was at times taken before or during the sixteenth cen- tury, some of the questionable indications of a three-field system which have been cited in this chapter are perhaps entirely authen- tic. At least there is opportunity, if any one thinks the evidence sufficient, for attributing to Harley and Seaton Delaval the practice of three-field agriculture.' Viewed in all its relations, Northumberland thus becomes a transitional coimty, having affiliations on the one hand with Scotland, on the other with the midlands. Despite the nominal division of the arable of its townships into fields, a division some- times apparent in maps and terriers, the absence of an equal apportionment of the acres of the holdings among these fields has led us to doubt the midland character of the latter. Apart ' Arckaeologia Aeliana, new series, 1894, xvi. 138. ^ Seebohm, in his latest book, remarks that the co-aration of the waste described in the Welsh laws of the tenth century " is an embryo form of the more advanced open field system of the settled agricultural village conununity. It is only necessary," he continues, " to extend the com crop over a wider area and to subject the strips to a permanent rotation of crops, and the result would be holdings with scattered and intermixed strips and the vaine pdture over the stubble " (Customary Acres and their Historical Importance, London, 1914, P- 6). ' Cf. above, pp. 220-221. 226 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS from this negative testimony to the absence of a two-, three-, or four-field system within the county, the nomenclature employed relative to fields and the method of fallowing strongly suggest a Scottish connection. Entirely Scottish was the temporary im- provement of tracts of waste land, followed in turn by the aban- donment of them to their original state. Scarcely have Celtic characteristics been discerned, however, before Northumberland fields are seen to have been cultivated in a manner which was not precisely that employed in Scotland at the end of the eighteenth century. It is not clear, first of all, that there was a permanent infield, and still less is it clear that there was continuous tillage of any part of the arable which would make possible such an infield. All cultivable land seems to have been treated in the same manner — tilled, probably, under the rotation of two crops and a fallow. At times a new furlong was improved from the waste, subjected to the usual cultivation for a series of years, and then allowed to revert to waste as another furlong was substituted for it. In Scotland, give-and-take of this sort was Kmited to the outfield; in Northumberland, it seems to have been applicable to all lands which at any time were brought under the plough. Another way in which a township of Northumberland differed markedly from one of Scotland was in its size. The surveyor of Long Houghton remarked upon " the greatnes of the said towne "; ^ subsidy lists frequently point to the existence of a not inconsiderable number of tenants;^ sixteenth- and seventeenth- century plans usually show a single large settlement within a large township area; ^ and, finally, the modern map reveals Northumberland as a county of villages rather than one of ham- lets. In Scotland, on the other hand, the townships, as we have seen, were usually small and the settlements in general had not a half-dozen houses. Northumberland, so far as concerns the area of its townships, was alhed with the Enghsh midlands rather than with its northern neighbor. ' Cf. above, p. 208. * See, for example, History of Northumberland, ii. 236, 365, 414, 472. ' For example, ibid., 368, 413, 432. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 22J Such are some of the reasons for looking upon the county as a region which in regard to its settlement and field system was transitional between the Celtic aiid midland areas. Originally perhaps, except for the size of its townships, it inclined to be Celtic, but as cultivation of the soil became more intensive the three-field system practiced toward the south may have been in a measure adopted. Scarcely, however, had this taken place when the process of enclosure began, and with more rapidity than in the midlands the history of open fields in Northumberland came to an end. Cumberland In the period of parliamentary enclosure few open arable fields, it seems, remained in Cumberland. Slater cites only five acts which mention them, and of these but two specify the acreage.^ The reporters to the Board of Agriculture ia 1794 subdivided the county into 350,000 acres of lakes and mountains, 150,000 of improvable common, and 470,000 of old enclosures, making no rubric for open arable fields.^ These last had, however, been existent a half-century earlier. Eden, writing in 1794-96, de- clared that in each of six parishes tracts of cultivated common field ranging in area from 100 to 3000 acres had been enclosed within the preceding fifty years.' In the case of four parishes he added brief descriptions. At Croglin, he wrote, " a great part of the arable land still remains in narrow crooked dales, or ranes "; at Cumrew " the grass ridges in the fields are from 20 to 40 feet wide, and some of them 1000 feet in length " ; the greater part of Castle Carrock " remains in dales, or doles . . . which are slips of cultivated land belonging to different pro- prietors, separated from each other by ridges of grass land " ; the cultivated land of Warwick " formerly, although divided, lay in long slips, or narrow dales, separated from each other by ranes, or narrow ridges of land, which are left unplowed." ^ 1 Twenty acres at Torpenton and 240 at Greystock {English Peasantry, p. 256). 2 J. Bailey and G. Culley, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Cum- berland (London, 1794), p. 9. ' Sir F. M. Eden, The State of the Poor (3 vols., London, 1797), ii. 45-93- The parishes were Ainstable, 400 acres; Castle Carrock, 100; Croglin, 100; Gilcrux, 400; Warwick, c. iioo; Wetheral, 3000. ' Ibid., 65, 67, 68, 92. 228 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Glebe terriers drawn up a century earKer (about 1704) illus- trate at length these descriptions.^ Sometimes the parcels of the glebe were not numerous and comprised but few acres. At Addingham there were 7J acres in five parcels, at Hayton 6\ acres in four parcels, at Castle Carrock ^\ acres in seven parcels. Elsewhere parcels were more numerous and the total areas greater. At Hutton-in-the-Forest twelve parcels contained 18 J acres; at Melmerby (besides 12 acres enclosed) twenty- two par- cels contained 14 acres; at Skelton thirty-one parcels contained 32 acres. Typical of these terriers, and instructive as to the size of the strips, the subdivision of them into riggs, and the names of the open-field areas in which they lay intermixed, is the description of the glebe at Orton.^ Apart from parcels of moss and rights of pasture over the moors, the parson had sixty- three riggs and one butt of arable, with various small pieces of meadow at the ends of these and certain raines or strips of turf * See Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc, Trans.j new series, 1910, X. 124 sg, 2 Ibid., 1893, xii. 137 (also new series, 1910, x. 124). The specifications run as follows: — " In the West field in the Croft ii Riggs with a Head Rigg, 3 acres [This parcel and each following one is bounded.) In Low Croft or East Roods 4 Riggs with a Raine between them and a piece of Meadow at the North End, i acre In the West Roods 4 Riggs, one acre . . . with a rigg of John Robinson's between them At the Croft Head two large Riggs ... 1 acre At the Parson's Thorn two long Riggs, one acre . . In Crossland two Riggs, i acre . . . with a piece of Meadow at the South end . . . In the Shaws three Riggs, one acre with a piece of Meadow at the low end . . . In the Organ Butts two small Riggs, half an acre . . . In Inglands two Riggs, one acre with a smaU piece of Meadow at the low end . . . In Sheep Coats two Riggs, one acre with a broad Raine between them and a piece of Meadow at the low end In Crabtreedale two Riggs, one acre with a piece of Meadow at the low end of them . . . In Grayston Butts two Riggs, half an acre . . . More in Grayston Butts two Riggs, half an acre . . . In the Shaws more two Riggs, half an acre . . . Glebe in Orton Rigg Field. In ye West end four Riggs, half an acre . . . At the Parson's Lees eight Riggs . . ., two acres with a Daywork of Meadow at the North end Glebe in Woodhouses Field In Bredick two Riggs, half an acre . . . Underbricks, a butt . . Upon the Bank or Priest bush three Riggs with a piece of Meadow at the North end . . . In the East Field four Riggs, three roods with a piece of Meadow at the North end . . . In Great Orton Moss a large parcel of Moss In the Flatt Moss another great parcel of Moss Common of Pasture for all the Parson's cattle with four Dayswork of Turf upon all the Moors of Orton within the Parish." CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 229 between them. The riggs lay in twenty divisions of the field and contained about 19 acres, from two to four riggs constituting an acre. Four fields are mentioned, but they take their places along with such curiously-named areas as " the Shaws " and " Underbricks." No grouping of strips by fields is perceptible. Descriptions like these at once establish the former existence of open-field intermixed strips in Cumberland. The period at which they were consolidated and enclosed cannot be here in- vestigated. Slater accepts Wordsworth's conjecture that a movement in this direction was not " general until long after the pacification of the Borders by the union of the two crowns." ^ What is without doubt is that in 1665 the estimated areas of certain townships, apart from common pasture, could be de- scribed as " Inclosed Ground — meadow, pasture, and arable." In this Ust are assigned to " the Lawnde or close of Heskett " 2500 such enclosed acres, to the hamlets of Serbergham and Scotby 750 and 700, to Gamblesby 1870.^ Early in the reign of James I the twenty-five tenants at Plumpton Park had enclosed their holdings, save that five had an interest in Le Haythorne- fields." ' By the middle of the seventeenth century enclosed townships were therefore easy to find. Leaving aside the date of enclosure, we may refer at once to Tudor and Jacobean surveys in order to determine, if possible, what was the nature of Cumberland open fields. Sometimes, it appears, aU holdings were in meadow, as in the mountain town- ship of Matterdale;* again, as at Cokermouth, we learn that there were arable acres " in communibus campis," but we learn no more.^ Elsewhere, however, certain features that seem to have been characteristic of the field system of the county are discernible, and of these the first is the grouping of rather small fields roimd correspondingly small hamlets. In determining the areas of townships we are likely to be mis- led if, retaining the midland point of view, we give attention ' English Peasantry, p. 258. 2 Land Rev., M, B. 258, fE. 64-^65. Hesket was one of Eden's open townships, but there is a High Hesket and a Low Hesket. " Land Rev., M. B. 213, £f. i-io. ' Land Rev., M. B. 212, f. 270. « Exch. K. R., M. B. 37, £f. 4-8. 230 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS merely to the area assigned to a Cumberland manor. In the midlands, manor and township tended to coincide, the latter being relatively large and comprising a single settlement also relatively large. A different situation has come to light in Herefordshire. There a manor comprised several townships, each containing a small settlement, more properly a hamlet than a village. Cumberland units were like those of Herefordshire: the manor was composite, the townships were small, the settle- ments were hamlets. No survey shows these features better than one of Holme Cultram, made in 2 James I.' At that time this old monastic manor was divided into four quarters, called Abbey, St. Cuth- bert's, Loweholme, and Eastwaver. The tenants of each of the four are mentioned in alphabetical order, and their holdings are located, with statement of areas. The names used in locating holdings turn out upon examination to be those, not of fields, but of several contiguous hamlets which he to the west of the village of Hohne Cultram. A summary for the Abbey quarter is as follows : — Name of Hamlet Number of Tenants Total Area in Acres Swinestie lo ii6 Sowter field 15 184 Aldeth 9 96I High Loese 13 129! Abbie Cowper 13 203 Sanden House 13 168J Browne Riggs 6 220 The quarter, which itself was only the fourth part of the manor, thus broke in turn into seven townships, the largest comprising only 220 acres. Since the holdings are described as " arable, meadow, and pasture," a part of each township must be set aside as non- arable. We thus have an agrarian situation in which the units of settlement comprised not more than fifteen tenants and the arable area contained usually less than 150 acres. Not dissimilar were the hamlets and fields of the manor of Hayton. A map and schedule of 17 10 describe the " infields " as comprising 1478 acres, the common or waste 3178 acres. 1 Land Rev., M. B. 212, S. 307-389. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 23 I Within the infields, according to the map, were six hamlets — Hayton, Fenton, Edmond Castle, How, Faugh, Headsnook. Hayton and Fenton gave their names to quarters which con- tained respectively 440 and 528 acres, the one being occupied by forty-five " toftsmen," the other by forty-three. A quarter probably embraced the lands of more than one hamlet; for, even if it is not clear that Edmond Castle was included in Hayton quarter, there can at least be no doubt that How fell within Fenton quarter. The improved land of either How or Fenton must therefore have comprised about 200 or 300 acres, an area somewhat larger than that of the Holme Cultram hamlet-fields.' The size of other Cumberland townships may be discovered in a survey of 1608 which relates to the " Castle Soake and De- maines of CarHsle." ^ Enough of the place-names can be identi- fied on the modern map to make it clear that locations are by hamlets. The " Standwicks freehold," to which are assigned fourteen free tenants and 153 acres, was no other than the township of Stanwix, a hamlet just across the river from the Castle. The fields of Currock, Blackwell, Upperby, and " St. Nicholas Hill " are grouped together. In them sixteen free tenants had 192 acres and nine customary tenants 99 acres, about one-fourth of the total area being meadow and pasture. Other hamlets were Almery Holme with twenty-one tenants in possession' of 51 acres, and Wery Holme with thirty-one tenants possessed of 130 acres. The fields of no hamlet in the survey contained so many as 300 acres, and usually a far smaller number. This illustration, together with the two preceding ones, may suffice to determine our conception of Cumberland settlement. We must think of the county as peopled by groups of from five to thirty tenants dwelling in hamlets round which the arable fields were seldom 300 acres in extent, and often not above 50 or 100 acres. From this first characteristic of Cumberland fields we pass to a second — the distinction occasionally noted between infield 1 Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc, Trans., new series, 1907, vii. 42 sq. * Land Rev., M. B. 212, £E. 129-158. 232 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS and outfield. In the Hay ton map of 1710 already referred to the arable is designated " infields " in contrast with the encir- cling waste. More striking is the name given to one of the hamlets of the manor. On the edge of the infield next the common was a tiny settlement called Faugh, and elsewhere on the map of Cumberland the same place-name is to be found.' It is, of course, the term which in Scotland was applied to that part of the outfield brought under occasional cultivation. The situation of Faugh on the Hayton map at a point where infield and outfield meet suggests a settlement due to the permanent improvement of the waste. In other Cumberland documents we learn further that a holding might consist of specific amounts of both infield and outfield. In a survey of Fingland made in 36 EUzabeth each of the eight tenants had " 16 acre terre arabilis in Infield et 10 acre terre arabihs in Outfield." ^ That the out- field was arable and was allotted in specified amounts implies an improvement of the waste before the end of the sixteenth cen- tury. This confirms our conjecture as to how the hamlet of Faugh may have arisen, and suggests that the situation which was characteristic of eighteenth-century Scotland was a transi- tional one in sixteenth-century Cumberland. Further light is thrown upon the appropriation of the outfield by two surveys of Soulby, a hamlet of the manor of Dacre.' In 9 EUzabeth Soulby was occupied by ten tenants, each of whom had a messuage with from five to seven acres of arable and meadow adjacent thereto. Besides this, there was assigned to each one acre of meadow " apud Bradhoomyre," two acres of arable "apud le Tofts," two of pasture "in Sourelands," and two of pasture " apud Fluscoo." In another survey of some forty years later the pasture in Sourelands and Fluscoo had become arable or arable-and-meadow, while a fifth area, called Woodend and Crakowe, had appeared.^ In this last area each tenant had 2§ acres of pasture or of pasture-and-arable. The two surveys sug- gest that there were appurtenant to the tenements at Soulby four 1 For example, a hamlet of Ainstable is called Faugh Heads. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 212, ff. 81 sq. ' Land Rev., M. B. 213, £E. 26-296. < Ibid., ff. 47-48. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 233 or five large parcels of the outfield or waste, each of which had been divided with precision among them and thenceforth appeared in the surveys, sometimes as pasture, sometimes as arable. Such a description, of course, applies rather well to certain furlongs of a Northumberland township, but even more accurately to the Scottish " folds " or " faughs," those divisions of the outfield which were brought under crops for a number of years and then allowed to revert to pasture for a corresponding period of time. It should be added that both Soulby and Fingland were small townships, each containing less than two hundred acres and each having not more than ten tenants. A field situation not imUke that perceptible in these townships is described in a somewhat confused Elizabethan survey of Lazonby.i Besides noting the acre or two adjacent to each tenement, it recoxmts a large number of field names — more than fifty. Since half of them are mentioned in connection with only one tenement apiece and are appHed to but small areas, they must have referred to parcels of land in the possession of single tenants. Fifteen other field names recur two or three times, and in these areas, which seldom contained so many as five acres, two or three tenants shared. In the following field divi- sions a greater number of tenants had parcels: — Field Name Number of Tenants Total Area in Acres Outelayerclose 27 87 Le Holme 13 is + 1° (enclosed) Le Holmebushes 16 2 Redmore (arable) 19 I7i Hailing (meadow) 13 13! Le Linge 9 isl Keld head (meadow) 8 8f Kelderdales (meadow) 4 Sl • Galloberg S qJ In these larger areas the shares of the tenants inclined to be more or less equal. Holdings in Le Holmebushes were usually | of an acre, in Outelayerclose 2§ or 5 acres, in HaUing and in Red- more f of an acre, in Gallowberg i| acres, and in Le Linge 2 acres. The equality of partition and the character of the names ' Land Rev., M. B. 212, ff. 1-7. 234 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS suggest that here too there had been improvement of the waste in which many tenants had shared. " Ling " is a term applied to a common; 1 Le Holmebushes bespeaks a brewery; Outelayer- close is reminiscent of outfield. It is not improbable that at Lazonby there was practiced the temporary appropriation of cultivable land, perhaps followed by its reversion to waste — a procedure suggested at Soulby and Fingland and well known to Northumberland and Scotland. Although this characteristic seems discernible in Cumberland tillage, the location of the acres of a holding one to another has not yet become apparent. At Soulby the half-dozen acres of each tenant's infield appear to have been consoHdated, since they are described as having been " adjacent " to the tenements.^ At Lazonby the undivided areas may have been similarly situ- ated, but we cannot tell. A survey of Ainstable made in 19 EHzabeth assists a httle in elucidating this important point.' To each of the three constituent hamlets of " Southeranraw," Ruckroft, and Castledyke it assigns some half-dozen tenants, with holdings of about ten acres apiece in the respective hamlet- fields; but regarding the position of these acres we learn nothing. The remaining tenants seem to belong to the hamlet of Ain- stable proper. Although sometimes the holdings here are not located, at other times they are said to have lain largely in South field or Kirk field. When this is the case, each was, except in one instance, entirely within one or the other of these fields.* Some- times, too, the acres of a tenant of one of the other hamlets lay wholly or partly in South field. Now, South field and Kirk field were pretty clearly not hamlet-fields attached to different hamlets, but were the two fields of a single township. Nor can the acres which fell within them be looked upon as enclosed, '■ Cf. below, p. 326. ^ Once the account adds that they lay to the south (ex attstro), once that they were enclosed, twice that they were called Lyngarth. ' Land Rev., M. B. 212, ff. 7-12. * In South field were three tenements of 5, 4J, and 4 acres respectively; in Kirk field there were six containing in all 24 acres; one tenement had ij acres in South field and 2 in Kirk field; another had 5 acres in Kirk field and 2 in Low field; one tenement of 10 acres lay in Low field. The acres of six tenements are not located. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 235 since the survey takes pains to distinguish its enclosures/ and at times states that a tenant's acres were scattered.^ The con- clusion, then, must be that, if a Cumberland hamlet had two open fields, the acres of the holdings were not divided between them but lay distributed throughout one of them. This impKes further that the dispersion of parcels was not very great, since it was possible to gather all those of a holding within an area described as one field. A similar situation is pictured in part of a description of the manor of Bromfield entitled " The Survey of lands in Alenbye now in the tenure of Jenet Shaw widoe and Michell fawcon." ' The first rigg which each tenant held is said to have lain in the East field, and the four following riggs were presumably in the same place. Thereafter one butt, two riggs, and two " Ing- dailes " are definitely said to have been in this field, and the location of only three butts is left uncertain. Without much doubt the parcels of the two tenants lay almost entirely within the so-called East field of Alenby. A Kke tendency toward segregation rather than wide distri- bution of the parcels of a holding appears in certain glebe terriers. At Hutton in the Forest the twelve strips of which the glebe 1 For example, " John Gibson tenet unum tenementum et unam clausam eidem ibidem adiacentem . . . continentem ii acras terre, prati, et pasture, et unam peciam terre in South field." ^ Appurtenant to one holding was a messuage, an acre close, and eight acres of arable, meadow, and pasture lying " diversim in campo ibidem vocato South- field." ' Add. Char. 17163, i Eliz. The specifications run as follows: — " Ayther of them one Rigg in the estefeyld called Ingdales Ayther of them a Rigge called totteryge Ayther of them another Rigge called lange smele Rige Ayther of them one Rigge upon borwe Ayther of them A wawcaye Rige Ayther of them one but in the same feyld called udge on butt And Ayther of theym one Rige in the said feld called grige Also Ayther of theym haith one Rige of medo lying in the este field in one plays called the mire Doyle conteyning by estimation two parts of one acar Item two Ingdailes lying in the newe Inge in the same contening by estimation one half Acar belonging Evenlye betwyn the said tenants Item Ayther of the sayd tenants haith one but called the crosse but, et Ayther of theym haith one wheat but lying on the weste syde of Alenbye mill Item Ayther of them haith one Dryebut of the weste syde Item Ayther of them haith one cowegate in the griff Ing als leckryge Also there is comen of pasture and turf graysce for there Rate of the comen of Alenbye." 236 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS was composed (a total of i8i acres) were described in 1704 as " all . . . butting on the pasture/' ^ a situation which precludes their distribution throughout the entire arable area. In another terrier inserted at the end of the register of Wetheral is a list of the parcels of land which in 1455 belonged to the prior at Warwick, a village near Carlisle.^ A glance at the description will show that many parcels either lay in or abutted upon " Les Halfakyrs/' and that Les Halfakyrs in turn abutted upon the * Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc, Trans.j new series, 1910, x. 126, 2 J. E. Prescott, Register of the Priory of Wetherhal (London, 1897), p. 374. The specifications run as follows: — " Terrae de Morehouse jacentes in diversis locis infra Dominium de Warthewyk pertinentes Priori de Wedyrhale . . . Imprimis predict! juratores praesentant et dicunt quod sunt infra dictum Dominium i acra vocata le Toftlandakyr cuius unus finis abuttat super Bromlands et alius finis versus Lynstock Item dimidia acra terrae cuius unus finis abuttat super les Bromlands et alius finis versus Lynstock Item iii rodae de les Bromland buttantes super terram quae vocatur le Bromylcroft Item i roda et dimidia terrae buttantes super altam viam et super les Bromlands Item le Tendlatheakyr buttans super altam viam et super communam de Warthewyk Item i roda terrae jacens super Roclyfbank et buttans super le Skewgh Item i acra terrae jacens super Roclyfbank et buttans super le Skewgh Item iii acra terrae jacentes super Roclyfbank et super dictum Skewgh Item i acra parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super Henry-holme et super les Halfakyrs Item dimidia acra terrae parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super Henry-holme et super les Halfakyrs Item i acra terrae parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super Warthewyk -wath et super les Halfakyrs Item le Shouptrefiat continens ii acras [>arcella de les Halfakyrs abuttantes super Rot- clifyate et super les Halfakyrs Item ii acrae parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttantes super altam viam et super aquam de Eden Item dimidia acra parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super altam viam et super aquam de Eden Item dimidia acra parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super altam viam et super Mydle- holmewath Item i acra terrae vocata le Goteakyr jacens in longitudine per aquam de Eden Item i roda terrae vocata Strawfordrode abuttans super aquam de Eden versus castellum de Lynstok et super les Bothomrodes Item ii acrae terrae vocatae Grastanflatt jadentes super les Shortbutts versus aquam de Eden Item le Stockflatt continens v acras terrae abuttantes super le Soketflatt et super altam viam Item le Pittflatt continens ii acras terrae abuttantes super altam viam et super le Goteakyr Item dimidia acra terrae abuttans super altam viam et super le Syke vocatum Whet- land syke Item ii acrae jacentes super le Butbrome et super les Halfakyrs et super altam viam Item ii acrae terrae abuttantes super terram de Aglunby et super terram vocatam FuUa-lands Item i acra et dimidia terrae vocatae Fulla lands abuttantes super altam viam et super les Halfakyrs et super FuUadub Item i acra terrae vocata Stanbryglands.'' CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 237 alta via and the aqua de Eden. Every parcel in the list except the last one and the three in Roclyfbank is thus described fully enough to be brought either into immediate contact with the alta via or the aqua de Eden, or into contact with some parcel which touches upon one of them. The chain becomes continuous, except for four parcels about which we are insufl&ciently informed and which at best contain only one-sixth of the total area. Un- less the entire open arable field of Warwick abutted upon the alta via and the aqua de Eden, we may safely conclude that the prior's acres lay segregated in one part of it. Early and late terriers thus concur in segregating to some extent the parcels of a holding. Perhaps not too much should be made of this feature, since we are not well informed of the precise extent of the fields to which the foregoing terriers relate. Yet one aspect of the subject seems clear, — the grouping of strips which prevailed at Ainstable, Alenby, Hutton, and War- wick was not consistent with a two- or three-field system. Whether the parcels of arable were markedly segregated or not, their distribution throughout two or three large fields is not at all perceptible. One should formulate no conclusion, however, without giving attention to earlier testimony. Little of this is to be found in the feet of fines, but a few instructive thirteenth-century terriers are embedded in the cartularies of Holme Cultram, Wetheral, and St. Bees.' Noteworthy is the unanimity with which these terriers locate their parcels by furlongs, without any attempt at grouping them by fields. At Wetheral, for example, the 4 acres that accompanied a house and croft consisted of nine such parcels, and another grant of if acres refers the parcels to eight locali- ties.^ Sometimes the specifications are full enough to show that the locaUties were not after all remote from one another. This was the case with 10 acres and 3 perches which St. Bees acquired at Rotington.' All parcels except the first lay adja- ' The cartulary of Lanercost priory I have not been able to examine. ^ Prescott, Register of Weiherhal, pp. T36, r4i. ' Harl. MS. 434, £. i6g (a late thirteenth-century cartulary). The spedfica- tions run as follows: — " Due acre et dimidia iacent in meysigwra inter moram et campum quod vocatur Kenelflat Item una acra que vocatur garebrad iacet iuxta terram que vocatur Kirkeland . . . 238 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS cent to " Kirkeland " or to " Wynnefoth," which were in turn connected by the fourth parcel. If we knew that the terrier referred to a tenant's holding, we should have clear evidence beariag on the segregation of parcels. That we do not points to our need of terriers that describe bovates, the unit in which lands were rated in Cumberland. Happily such terriers are available from five townships. At Melmorby, in the eastern mountains, the bovates were undivided plats. One is described as " illam bovatam quae iacet propin- quior terrae Adae filii Henrici versus orientem";' two others are " illas quae iacent inter terram Beatae Mariae Karleoli et Littilgilsic." ^ Near the western coast at Blencogo much the same plat-like character must have pertained to " duas bovatas terre . . . iacentes propinquiores porte ex occidentaH parte ville." ' Since, however, the two had been given as a dower {in liherum maritagium) and were not accompanied by mes- suages, they may have been demesne lands. At the moimtain hamlet of Caber two bovates are somewhat similarly described, about 1240, as comprising one parcel of land probably rather large, three professedly small, and a parcel of marsh.* From Warwick, whence we have already had the terrier of the Wetheral lands in 1455, comes the description of a bovate which was given to the priory soon after 1175. It consisted of " quinque acras Item dimidia acra iacet in fridaylandes et extendit se . . . a bercaria usque ad . . . Kirkeland . . . Item una acra et septemdecim perticate iacent iuxta Bercariam . . . inter terram que vocatur Wymiefoth et . . . Kirlteland Item una crofta . . . que continet in se unam acram et sex perticatas iuxta . . . Kirkeland Item tres acre et tres Rode et dimidia iacent inter Bemardhou et Brezhou et extendunt se in longitudine de Wynnefoth usque ad seberth." 1 Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, p. 289. 2 Ibid., 291. ' Harl. MS. 3911, f. s^b (an early fourteenth-century copy). * " Totam terram a superiori parte Mussae ad Neubussehill sicut le silkette descendit a predicta Mussa usque ad viam ad Surflatende et sicut dicta via tendit usque . . . [etc., bounded at length], et in Bacstanegyle et in Bochum duas acras et dimidiam, et quandam partinunculam terrae quae vocatur le Gare . . . et ab angulo fossati de Communa duas acras terrae in latitudine versus Mussam . . . et totam meditatam Marisci Scalremanoch versus meridiem " (Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, p. 283). CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 239 in Westcroft, et duas acras in Graistanflat, et unam acram iuxta holm cum prato ad predictam terram pertinente." ^ These four early bovate terriers show no marked distribution of par- cels. One describes the acres as lying in five places (including the marsh), another assigns them to three, while two terriers imply that the bovates were consoHdated. Different is the fifth terrier, superior to the others in that the bovate which it describes was appurtenant to a messuage. The land lay at Tallantire, and was granted to St. Bees late in the thirteenth century. It consisted of twelve parcels, but there is little indication how these were situated relative to one another.^ Only two lay in the same area, Biggehove, the others being in different furlongs. In the absence of descriptive locations we cannot tell how widely these furlongs may have been separated; but at least they formed a group distinct, with one exception, from the group in which nine other acres in Tal- lantire lay. The latter are described in a grant which appears to have been contemporary with the other one, since to some extent the names of the witnesses are the same; like the first, its acres were attached to a toft and probably constituted a holding. If such were the case, we have two tenements in the same township, each comprising several parcels, but parcels which in only one instance lay in the same furlong (Bighou).' While this does not ' Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, p. 121. 2 The description (Harl. MS. 434, f. 161) runs as follows: — " Unam bovatam terre ad mensuram Rode viginti pedes continends . . cum tofto et crofto integro et toto prato ad illam bovatam terre . pertinentibus . . . videlicet, in crofto duas acras et dimidiam lodam et quatuordecim perticatas apud biggehoue versus occidentem unam acram et unam rodam et quatuor perticatas ibidem versus orientem duas rodas et dimidiam apud thuahouel unam acram sub Warthebolis unam acram et unam rodam et vigintinovem perticatas apud routhelands unam rodam et tresdecim perticatas infra vias de Warthehol' et Karliol duas acras et unam rodam et dimidiam et quinque perticatas apud heyberhe unam acram et viginti tres perticatas apud leuedibuthes dimidiam acram et quatuor perticatas ad Sandrig tres rodas et dimidiam rodam et octo perticatas ad hildirflath unam acram et unam rodam et dimidiam rodam et quatuordecim perticatas in cultura a molendino versus aquilonem in quinta et sexta selione versus orientem duas rodas et dimidiam et sexdecim perticatas." ' Ibid., f. 1616. The description runs as follows: — " In crofto eiusdem domus tres rodas et octodecim perticatas In hagwrinron cum prato ibi iacente quinque rodas et unam perticatam 240 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS prove that the parcels of each group were segregated, it suggests that such may have been the case. Other early terriers of the cartularies relate to groups of acres or fractional acres which are not designated as bovates or tenants' holdings. They incline, Hke the Tallantire terriers, to locate parcels in several furlongs which are not brought into relation with one another and are never grouped by fields. Hence they furnish little information, except to make clear that more or less scattered strips were the constituents of early Cumber- land fields and to emphasize the absence of a two- or three-field grouping. At this point our evidence comes to an end. The nature of Cumberland open field has been ascertained only in its broader aspects; yet these are perhaps sufl&cient to determine certain afl&Kations. It has been pointed out that the field arrangements of Northumberland in the sixteenth century and at an earlier time manifested Scottish characteristics, though various descrip- tions concur with the map in disclosing other characteristics not Scottish. In particular did the size of the townships differ from what was usual across the border. Nor is it clear that the arable of a Northumberland township was ever divided sharply into infield and outfield, each tilled in the Scottish manner. On the contrary, a larger stretch of ciiltivable land was probably kept imder more continuous tillage than in Scotland. The field sys- tem of the county seems, in short, to have had midland as well as Scottish aspects. Cumberland, on the other hand, appears to have inclined more to Celtic usages. In the first place, there nowhere occur in Cumberland sur- veys and terriers suggestions of a two- or three- or four-field grouping such as are often fovmd, though not well substantiated, in Northumberland documents. If, by chance, mention is made in a Cumberland terrier of an East field, there is small Kkehhood of finding further reference to a West field or a Middle Ad Braidron imam acram et tres rodas et decern perticatas In thorfinesakyr unain acram et tres rodas et octodecim perticatas Ad bighou tres rodas una perticata minus Ad blaakepot unam rodam et triginta duas perticatas Super Banks unam acram et triginta perticatas Ad viam que ducit ad capellam Sancte Trinitatis tres rodas octodecim perticatas." CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 24 1 field. It is not merely that the absence of an equal division of the acres of a holding among such fields leads to a distrust of the agrarian significance of the latter, as in Northumberland, but it seems clear that symmetrical fields seldom or never existed. Nor is the infrequent appearance of fields due to paucity of documents; for Cumberland surveys and terriers are not less numerous than those usually available from a midland county. Instead of adopting the midland arrangement, the acres of a holding seem even to have manifested a tendency to concen- trate within one part of the arable area of a township. If we have insufficient evidence to prove that this was usual, its occasional occurrence is none the less contributory to a disbelief in the extension of the midland system to the county. Apart from the intractability in Cumberland and probably in Northumberland, of the acres of a holding relative to a systematic field arrangement, we have from both counties positive proof of Scottish affiliations. Briefly stated, it is that, in both, portions of the waste were after the Scottish manner temporarily tilled and then allowed to revert to pasture. For Northumberland the evidence of this practice consists of certain descriptive state- ments, for Cumberland of inferences drawn from sixteenth- century surveys. But whether the Scottish division between compact outfield and infield was maintained in Northumberland there is reason to doubt. In Cumberland, on the contrary, it was perhaps more persistent, if one may judge from the phrases of the Fingland terrier.-' Such a persistence, were we assured of it, would constitute a second point of difference between Cumberland and Scottish agrarian arrangements on the one hand and those of the midlands and Northumberland on the other. We are better informed, however, regarding a third dissimi- larity — that, namely, which inheres in the size of the townships. As has been pointed out, Northumberland townships were large, those of Cumberland small, as were also those of Scotland. Often the total area of these small townships was not more than one-fourth of what was usual in the midlands or in Northumber- ' Cf. above, p. 232. 242 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS land. Whether, then, the size of township fields or the method of their tillage be considered, Cumberland appears more Celtic than any other county of England thus far examined. To the south, however, lies a stretch of territory in which the Celtic population long withstood the Anglo-Saxons, and in which, therefore, phenomena not unlike some of those akeady described in this chapter may be apparent. Lancashire Since Lancashire was once joined with Cumberland in the old Celtic kingdom of Strathclyde, we shall expect to find in the two coimties similar agrarian conditions. There should be discernible in Lancashire, as in Cumberland, few surviving open common fields in the eighteenth century, but at an earlier time a certain number of small ones in which the parcels of the tenants had no systematic midland arrangement. Slater found in Lancashire no common fields enclosed by act of parhament, although there are numerous acts affecting com- monable waste.' The report submitted by John Holt to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 estimated that nearly one-half of the area of the county was waste — 508,000 acres out of 1,129,600. " There are," he says, " but few open or common fields at this time remaining; the inconvenience attending which, while they were in that state, has caused great exertions to accompKsh a division, in order that every individual might cultivate his own lands according to his own method; and that the lots of a few acres, in many places divided into small portions, and again separated at different distances, might be brought together into one point. . . . The inclosures or fields are in general very small, so much so as to cause great loss of ground from their number and the space occupied by hedges, banks and ditches. " ^ All this bespeaks piecemeal enclosure of coirmion fields, perhaps long continued. 1 English Peasantry, p. 255. ^ General View of the Agriculture of the County of Lancashire (London, 1794), PP- 49, 52- CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 243 A concrete illustration of the early prevalence of enclosures is at hand in a detailed survey of the large manor of Rochdale, m&.de in 1626.^ This estate, situated in the southeastern part of the county, included some twenty-four hamlets and had an area of 41,828 acres. Somewhat more than one-fourth of the manor remained in open common waste at the time of the sur- vey, but the remainder lay almost entirely in closes. At times there were parcels of pasture which, being newly divided, were not yet enclosed.^ Intermixed arable strips were nowhere to be fovmd. Thus, to a large tract of land on the edge of the moors — a tract which may never, to be sure, have had much open- field arable — the eighteenth-century description was applicable a hundred and fifty years earlier. There is, however, no difficulty in finding traces of open common arable in the seventeenth century. The rental of the houses and lands of Edward Moore at Liverpool, drawn up in 1667-68 and unconsciously offering a striking comment on the later development of that port, frequently attaches to the houses " several lands [e. g., ten] in the field." Elsewhere it is the " town field," but we get no further detail.^ An instructive document illustrative of early seventeenth- century conditions in Lancashire is an accoimt, drawn up in 1616, of the "Appropriate Parsonages or Rectories of Black- bourne and Whaley . . . possessions and Heriditaments belonging to the Archbishopricke of Canterburie." * Since there belonged " unto the said Rectory the Moietie of the Lordship of Black- bourne," the townships included in the enumeration extended over an area of at least 200 square miles in the northeastern part of the county.* With one exception the land described in • Henry Fishwick, Survey of the Manor of Rochdale (Chetham Soc, 1913), pp. xiii, XV. ^ Ibid., 240, Whitworth hamlet: " A parcel of pasture . . . lying open amongst the rest of the Copyholders in the Trough containing statute [measure], 10 acres, 3 roods." Areas held by other copyholders " in the Trough " are given. ' Thomas Heywood, The Moore Rental (Chetham Soc, 1847), pp. 19, 23, et passim. „ * Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, £E. 24-46. ' The townships were Samelsbury, Overdale, Walton, Downham, Church, Has- hngden, Burnley, Colne, Clitheroe, besides Blackburn and Whalley. 244 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS each township lay in closes, often many in number. The excep- tion was the township of Altham ia the parish of Whalley, where the glebe lands comprised a long list of open-field selions.^ A note ^ Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, ff. 40 sq. The description runs as follows: — " Now foUoweth ye parsonage Gleabe of Whaley lying within ye towneship of Alvetham alias Altham, viz: Item ... in a feild of the Eyes toward Simonston certaine lands called Calved Eyes with a parcell betwene the divisions of the waters Item in the same Eyes towards Alvetham alias Altham, certaine lands called little Eyes neere the Milldam . . . and so descending into Calder Item at a place called the Bronckhouses a Mesuage which sometimes Adam of Aspden held Item there nere the greene gate fower Selions butting upon the way Item in the same feild in a certaine place called the farthings fower selions Item in the same feild a selion like to a headland nere the house which sometune John of Boncke held Item nere the said mesuage si^c selions butting upon the said messuage Item in the same feild two selions Item in the Mitthom twoo selions nere the syke with meadou in both the ends Item in the west parte of Nether East feild a Selion with a geron towards the west Item in the same feild six selions iacentes divisim Item in the Over east field xi selions iacentes divisim Item in the feild of Hoghton in the Blackcroft xviii selions iacentes divisim amongst percells of the oxegangs Item in the same feild six Butts iacentes divisim Item in the same feild of Hoghton at the Rishy flatt thirteene selions iacentes divisim Item in the same field ten selions iacentes simul which is called the Barriers Item in a certaine feild called the Hanflatt contayning in length xxxvii selions and on the other side ix selions with a way lying to the said feild toward the wood Item in the same field of Hoghton the Walllands conteyning xi selions and in another place in the same feild xxi selions Item in the feild above the Hall a mesuage which is called Hannehousteed and four selions extending themselves from the said mesuage to the Bame of the Mannor of Altham Item a certaine place called Hannecroft in the same feild conteyning six Butts Item on the west parte of the Mannour a certaine Messuage which Roger de Ornesden sometime held with all Selions abutting upon the said Mesuage and two selions whose ends are extended neere the said Messuage Item in the feild of Milnecroft two Selions iacentes divisim Item in the feild of Lordshall six Selions iacentes divisim Item in the feild of Tonnested twenty-one Selions iacentes divisim Item there at the Hartstalgreve and Firme ten Selions iacentes divisim Item in the Nethertonnsted xi selions iacentes divisim Item in the West Eyes xvii selions with three Butts and a geron Item beyond the water towards Reved five selions iacentes divisim Item a certaine Mesuage on the east part of the Mesuage with the priests bouse Item in the Brichholme a certain Croft Item a certaine place neere the Manner gate for a Tyth bame Item in the greate meadow under the Lords hill in the East part of the said meadow in breadth Ixiii feete lying together whose longitude is extended from the Lords hill to the Hay of the Kerre Item in the middle of the same feild from a part of the old Cawsey xxvii feet in latitude and from the other part of the said Cawsey xviii feet in latitude extending itself in longitude as before » Item further in the same feild toward the west two Selions Item in the same meadow toward the Meneeage the moytie of all that parcell called the Meneeage dividing it equally with the Lord altemis vicibus CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 245 at the end of the list records that certain of the field names were ancient and that enclosure had recently been in progress.' As to the field system which underlay this elaborate descrip- tion only tentative conclusions can be drawn. Since four mes- suages appear, it is possible that three or four holdings were thrown together. If the selions described between the first and second messuages belonged to one holding, they lay very largely in " the field of Hoghton." Here were 59 selions and 6 butts, whereas to none of the other five fields in this group were assigned more than 1 1 selions, Hanflatt being probably a close. This im- phes considerable segregation. After passing the second mes- suage new fields appear, none of them containing very many sehons, save Tonnested and Nethertonnsted with 21 and 11, and West Eyes with 17. If, on the other hand, the messuage succession has no significance and parcels in the same field belonging to different messuages are thrown together, we can only say about the field system that it seems to have been entirely irregular. While Altham )delds only this terrier, Warton situated to the west on the coast boasts a complete survey of 7 James I.^ En- closed land is here carefully distinguished from common field, the latter being said to He " in communibus campis," or " in Warton field," or " in le Townefield." Although an occasional parcel of common meadow is singled out for specific location, this almost never happens to the arable, except to eight parcels " in le Bonetowne " and four " super le towne." The field system cannot therefore be ascertained, and it only remains to Item in the furthest part of the said meadow which goeth towards the Mihie croft in the East part two selions lying neere the Lords hill with a certaine round parcell of the same meadow nere the hedge of the same Selions Item in the west parte of the end of the said meadow a gereon and beneath that two Selions Item at the Hartalstall greve ten Selions Item all the meadow of Altham in Symonston Eighes with all the errable there." 1 " Item the said Jurors do further find present and say that the names of the feilds aforementioned were the aimcient names of the said feilds, but time hath wome out those names and given them new names onely some of the aimcient names remaine at this day, viz: the Hoghtons, the Kerre, the Mitthom. Which Hogh- tons were of late yeares divided into divers closes, and so the ancient longitude and latitude of them doth not in any one feild continue at this day." 2 Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 27-58. 246 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS determine the area of the open field relative to the area enclosed. The five freeholders, who controlled 29 cottages and gardens had, it appears, 15 enclosed acres, while, the land attached to the forty-four customary messuages amounted to about 270 enclosed acres (mainly small parcels of pasture) and about 287 acres of common field, of which at least 107 acres were common meadow. Of open-field arable there were, therefore, not more than 180 acres, or about one-fourth of the cultivated land of the township. No rights of pasturage over the arable are mentioned, most tenants having " cattle gates " in Lyndeth Marsh or in le Inges, and sometimes common pasture for sheep on Warton Crag and Warton Marsh. For two Lancashire townships there are fifteenth-century terriers testifying to the existence of open arable fields.' One recites a grant to Penwortham priory of lands at Farrington, a hamlet southeast of Preston. By it were transferred, along with a messuage, 7I and 11 acres of arable. Of the 7§ acres, 5 were in a field which bore the name of the adjacent hamlet of Clayton {in quodatn campo vocato Claghtonfelde) , and the rest in three parcels lay respectively in Brockforlong, Stainfeld- more, and " ex parte boreali le Heghgate." The 11 acres lay, we know not how divided, " in Longestainfeld, Brokeforlong, Shortstainfeld, et le Orchards, et Catcroft medowe." ^ To judge from this grant, the subdivisions of Farrington field were few in number, scarcely more than a half-dozen. A like sim- plicity of field division is apparent in the other terrier, despite its greater length. This specifies the parcels which were sub- tracted from three bovates and three acres of arable, and from ' It would seem at first sight as if there were useful information in a long fifteenth- century survey of the lands of Sir Peter Legh at Warrington near the mouth of the Mersey, published by the Chetham Society in 1849 (William Beamont, Warrington in 146s). Apart from the messuages, gardens, and certain acres " in campo vocato Hollay," much of the land described lay " in magno campo vocato Arpeley," or in some part of it, as Le Wroe or Wetakyrs. A glance at the Warrington of today, however, shows that the reference is undoubtedly to the large tract of meadow land almost encircled by the Mersey and still called Arpsley meadows. We can learn little about field systems from intermixed acres of common meadow. 2 W. A. Hulton, Documents relating to the Priory of Penwortham (Chetham Soc, 1853), P- 67 {22 Hen. VII). CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 247 ten acres of meadow, at Bolron near Lancaster.' Except for the if acres in the last three parcels, the arable lay in four parts of the field. At Bolronbroke and Bohondale were i J acres in four parcels, in or under the Withins 25 acres in four parcels, " super Bambrest " 4I acres in four parcels, and in the Oldefalde ij acres apparently together. Locations like these at Farring- ton and Bolron do not adapt themselves to a three-field arrange- ment. They suggest rather small hamlet fields subdivided into a few areas somewhat like midland furlongs. Throughout these furlongs the parcels of a tenant were scattered irregularly. These characteristics are reproduced and emphasized in several thirteenth-century terriers referring chiefly to townships situated on the coastal plain between Preston and Lancaster. For the most part they record grants to Cockersand abbey, grants that seldom convey so much as ten acres of open-field arable, therein differing from the charters of a midland cartulary, which nearly always include some long specifications. Li the brief Cocker- sand transfers it is possible, none the less, to discover in a measure the relative positions of the parcels conveyed. Typical in all respects is the charter relative to a messuage, garden, and 5I acres of arable at Sowerby.^ Not only were the acres granted ' William Farrer, Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey (Chetham Soc, 3 vols, in 7 pts., 1898-1909), iii. pt. i. 819-820. The specifications riin as follows: — " Robertus . . . recuperavit seisinam suam . , . de medietate unius acrae tenae iacente ex utraque parte de Bolronbroke . . . ac de una roda terrae in Bolrondale iacente inter terram . . . et de una alia roda terrae in Bolrondale per se necnon de medietate unius acrae terrae cum uno to/to cum suis pertinentibus in Bol- rondale ac de tribus rodis terrae jacentibus subtus le Withins in Aldlancastre ed de una alia roda in eadem per se ac de tribus rodis terrae in eadem per se et de aliis tribus rodis terrae in eadem per se Et etiam de quinque rodis terrae in le Oldefalde cum sirposis clausuris et de una acra terrae super Bambrist iuxta le Lone in Scotforde cum quodam prato . . . scilicet, Morehous, continente duas acras et dimidiam Et similiter de duabus acris et medietate unius [acrae] terrae iacentibus super Bambrest per se ac de tribus rodis terrae super Bambrest per se ac de una roda terrae et prati super Bambrest Ac etiam de tribus rodis terrae in le Riddyng in Scotford ac de tribus rodis terrae iuxta le Standandstone et de una roda terrae super le Clyff. ..." ' Ibid., i. pt. ii. 244 (c. 1 230-1 268). The arable comprised: — " Tres per[ti]catas in orientali parte de Stirap super aquam de Broc et tmam dimidiam acram in occidentali parte de Stirap iuxta vadum de Quitakedich 248 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS few in number, but, as the locations show, they were not widely separated; all the parcels except the last were connected in one way or another with Stirap, Quitakedich, and the " aqua de Broc," which three in turn were near one another. The segregation which has been noted in Cumberland reappears. It can also be traced to some extent at Preston in the eight parcels which were transferred along with a burgage tenement and the third part of a toft.^ Apart from the meadow, an assart, and a half-acre near the garden, the arable lay largely in SicUngmor and Platfordale, with something in Aldefeld and at SewaUesike; but how these areas were related we do not discover. Traces of segregation are discernible, once more, in one of the longest charters of the cartulary. From it we leam that the ten acres which the abbey acquired at Newton comprised many parcels, some of them described as selions.^ Since 5I acres and more than half of the seUons lay in Otemaste and Wodebinde furlongs, these two divisions of the open field contained more than three-fourths of the ten acres conveyed. In fact, one of them alone comprised about five acres, a predominance which would not be met with in a normal midland terrier. Perhaps these descriptions may suflSce to show that the open fields of Lancashire had characteristics similar to those of et unam acram et dimidiam in alia divisa . . . sequendo Quitakedich ... ad seUiones de Stirap . . . et duas acras terrae in alia divisa . . . sequendo . . . usque aquam de Sroc . . . et unam dimidiam acram in alia divisa super terram de Leye." 1 Farrer, Chariulary of Cockersand Abbey, iii. pt. i. 217 (c. 1230-1255). The parcels are described as follows: — *' Totam terram in assarto meo . . . et quatuor partes terrae super Siclingmor [three parcels, each between the lands of other men] et unam dimidiam acram super Aldefeld . . et tres per[ti]catas terrae in Platfordale . . . et unam dimidiam acram in Platfordale . . . et dimidiam acram . . . iuxta orreum meum et totam terram meam ex utraque parte de SewaUesike et totum pratum meum inter pratum Adae albi et commune Karrum.*' ' Ibid., 17s (1262-1268). Except when otherwise specified, the following areas are in acres: — " Super Otemaste furlong," i, }, i, i, i, i, J, J, 3 selions " super Wodebinde furlong," x, I, 4 half-selions " in superiori parte viae quae ducit ad Singilton," 5 half-^selions " in inferiori parte viae de Singilton," 2 *' Tungas " " super le holderthe," z butt, 2 half-selions, i selion " super Karfurlong," 2 " Tungas." CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 249 Cumberland. By the eighteenth century they had, like the fields to the north, become largely enclosed, though certain glebe terriers of the seventeenth century indicate that the intermixture of parcels persisted in a few localities and on a considerable scale. In these and in earher terriers of the fifteenth and thirteenth cen- turies the nature of the open fields becomes apparent. Nowhere were the parcels grouped systematically in the midland manner. On the contrary, they are described as lying irregularly, in areas variously named and sometimes called furlongs, while not in- frequently they were segregated. Regarding the method em- ployed in tilling the open fields no information is at hand. Since such characteristics as we know about, however, are manifesta- tions of Celtic runrig, it seems permissible to join Lancashire with Cumberland, and assign both counties to the region within which EngUsh agriculture was affected by Celtic custom. Cheshire Of the counties on the Welsh border, Cheshire is most closely joined with that part of Wales to which considerable attention has been given. Since Chester is only some ten miles down the valley of the Dee from Wrexham, we shall expect to find round about this county town common fields not imlike those of eastern Denbighshire. Late documents, however, do not tell much of common arable fields in Cheshire. The reporter to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 estimated that they probably did not amount to 1000 acres in a county of 676,000 acres, nine-tenths of which was improved land.^ Descriptions of all the tenants' holdings at Davehham and Great Budworth in 1650 assure us that nothing but closes were to be found.^ A great survey of Macclesfield manor and forest made in 9 James I gives minute details for some sixteen townships; ' but throughout the entire survey there is scarcely ' Thomas Wedge, General View 0} the Agriculture of the County of Cheshire, London, 1794. 2 Parliamentary Surveys, Cheshire, No. 11. ^ Land Rev., M. B. 200, f. 239 (the survey comprises folios 147-357). A typical holding is described as follows: — " Jasper Worth, esquire, daymeth to hold to him and his heyres by copie of court roll . . . Item One other tenement in the tenure of John Latham, viz: 250 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS a suggestion of open common field, except perhaps in the mention of a few unusual " parceUs " of arable at Bollington.' Apart from these, the entire manor lay in small closes, containing for the most part from one to two acres and consisting largely of arable. None the less, there is seventeenth-century evidence that open common fields existed in Cheshire. In 1649 the messuages and lands of the dean and chapter at Chester were surveyed. After an enumeration of several closes " situate without Northgate," the accoimt describes a series of " parcells," mainly arable and usually of from one to two acres in extent. Though most of these are not said to be in open field, a few at the beginning of the list are so described: " In Chester Town Feild, One parcell of Ground, called Long hedge Acre ... is in Estimacion 2 acres. . . . One parceU of ground more in Chester Town Field, near Dee Bank, called Grange Acre . . . [is] in Estimacion I acre, 2 roods. . . . One parcell of Arrable groimd in the Lower Town Feild . . . commonly caled Burtons Acre . .- . containeth by Estimacion 2 acres." ^ At least we are assured of the continued existence at Chester, in the middle of the seven- teenth century, of a " town field " the constituents of which were small parcels of arable. Not much more informing is an account of the " rectory lands " at Bowdon, dated 1654. This glebe was then leased to eight under-tenants, each with a messuage, though two were cot- One dwelling howse and the outhowses thereunto belonginge One close Arr[able] called the Layefield by estimation 3 acres One close called the Meadow place by estimation 2 " One other Arr[able] called the Hugh close by estimation i acre One other called the good crof te by estimation i " One other called the Goosie Meadowe by estimation i ** One other Arr[able] called the Symentley Knowle by estimation 3 acres One other Arr[able] called Symentley by estimation i acre One other called the litle Meadow by estimation J " One other Arr[able] called the Calfe crofts by estimation 3 acres One other Arr[able] called the Bancks by estimation 3 *• " ' One holding, for instance (Land Rev., M. B. 200, f. 321), includes: — " One parceU of Arrable in the towne field ij roods one other parcell of Arrable in the Neather or towne field . 4g yards by s yards one other parcell of Arrable called the Butt in Page Croft . 20 " " 4 " " ' Henry Fishwick, Lancashire and Cheshire Church Surveys (Lane, and Chesh. Rec. Soc, 1879), pp. 226-227. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 25 I tagers. The six held for the most part a series of closes, but four had also " lands " or strips lying intermixed in places called Eyebrookes, Church field, and Hall field.^ These strips formed less than one-third of each leasehold, the ratios in acres being 21 to 7si, 65 to 85 J, 12 to 38I, 10 to 33 J. The Eyebrookes was a close, and may have been a close of glebe shared by the four tenants. Since Hall field and Church field were situated " upon the Downes," they suggest areas recently improved and sub- divided. Such constituents do not go to the making of normal open arable fields. Less vague is a survey of 1650 relative to the manor of Hand- bridge, just outside Chester.^ Twenty-two of the tenants had each a messuage, a garden (never larger than half an acre), and common of pasture in Saltney Marsh. In addition, each had from one to six " lounds in the Towne feild." Always there were from one to three " lounds " in " Longefeild in the Towne- feild," and eleven tenants had also a strip or two apiece " at the lower ende of the Bottom in the Town feild." There were besides two parcels " within the GuUett in the Townfeild," four at " Lowhill in the Townefields," and two at Crossflatts. At times the " lound " is said to have contained one acre, and on this basis the total area of all of them would have been about sixty acres. At length we have discovered a town field, small, to be sure, but one which had its subdivisions and one in which many tenants had intermixed parcels. In sixteenth-century terriers similar open fields are discernible in the same neighborhood. At Chester, in 2 Edward VI, the college of St. John the Baptist had several tenants, the holdings ' Fishwick, Lancashire and Cheshire Church Surveys, pp. 176-184. The items are as follows: — " Nyne lands in the Close called the Eye brookes, Conteyneing by estimacioQ 8 acres. . . . Seaven Lands in the Churchfeild and eight lands in the Hall hill, conteyneing by estimacion 13 acres. . . . Two lands and one head land in a Close Called the Eyebrookes, by estimacion 2 acres, 2 roods. . . . Three lands in the Church-feild and one land in the Hall feild, both upon the Downes, by estimacion 4 acres. . . . Seaven lands in the Eyebrookes, by estimacion 6 acres. One land in the long acres, by estimacion i acre. , . . Two lands, two headlands in the Churchfeild, and three lands in the Hall feild or hall hill, by estimacion s acres. . . . Seaven lands in the Eye brookes, by estimacion s acres, 2 roods. . . . Fewer lands in the Church feild, with a small Cottage, by estimacion 4 acres, 2 roods." ' Parliamentary Surveys, Cheshire, No. 13 A. 252 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS of some twenty of whom included selions in different fields near the city.' These selions, which are also called riggs or lands (terre), are never rated in acres; they even at times serve as units of measure for the butts. No tenant had more than eleven and one-half of them, the usual holding being five. Since the seUon probably contained not more than an acre, the average share in the common field did not exceed five acres and the total extent of common arable cannot have been great. Of the three fields named, one is simply the field of Chester; Spyttel field and Banke field might seem to be subdivisions of this, were it not that in certain instances each is made coordinate with it. Usually the selions of a holding lay in a single field. Only four times are they assigned to two fields, and only once to three, the division of acres in the last case being unequal (2, 2J, 4). There is, therefore, no reason for concluding that a three-field system was known to the common field or fields of Chester in the middle of the sixteenth century. A terrier, contemporary with this from Chester and declaring itself a " bylle of the lands of Sir phylj^pe Egertons," describes a holding in Tilston, a parish only about three miles across the Dee from the Denbighshire open fields of Issacoed and Pickhill. Most of the butts are assigned to the town field of Horton, itself one of the hamlets of the parish of Tilston; ^ but whether ' Rents, and Survs., Portf. 6/24, fE. 6-9. The list is as follows, separation by semicolons indicating different holdings: — ** In communi campo Cestrie or in campo ( unum pratum; iii seliones; iii seliones; Cestrie t iv seliones; viii seliones; iii seliones / vi terre arabiles in orientali parte; v seliones; In Spyttelfelde \xi seliones et dimidia; vi terre arabiles in ^ orientali parte; v seliones !iv seliones; quinque butts continentes ii sel- iones et dimidiam; iv seliones; quinque butts continentes ii seliones et dimidiam iii seliones et iiii seliones; iii seliones et ii seliones; ii seliones et iiii seliones et ii seliones terre et dimidia cum uno hadlonde in Bankefeld In Bankefelde et ( v seliones et ii seliones; i selio et dimidia In Chesterfelde f et iii seliones." ' Rents, and Survs., Portf. 1/4, No. 9. The specifications run as follows: — " In the fylde of humfre hansons there be thow buttys , . . In the same fylde be thow . . . [elsewhere] Another butte . . . a hadlant lyeng in horton towne fylde . . . In the same fylde . . four . , . CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 253 there was any grouping of butts within this field we do not learn. Sixteenth-century arrangements at Tilston and at Chester thus seem to have been like those of. the Denbighshire hamlets round Wrexham.^ SeHons in the possession of any tenant were few — seldom more than a half-dozen — and were located without any indication of grouping by fields. Often the entire open arable area was imdifferentiated, being merely assigned to a hamlet. Such a " town field " must have been small and situated near the hamlet or village. Though one cannot in Cheshire, as in Denbighshire, compare total areas of townships with the areas of their open fields, the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century surveys of the former county, so far as they are extant, show fully as much enclosure as do those of the latter. In the char- acter and extent of its open field the Dee valley was at that time a unit. Thirteenth-century testimony regarding unenclosed fields in this part of Cheshire is not wanting. It is to be found largely in the cartulary of St. Werburgh, written soon after 1300,^ and it accords with the sixteenth-century evidence. To sharpen our conception of a somewhat puzzling field system, it may be well to summarize and illustrate the features that appear in the charters. The grants were usually made in selions, " lands," or butts, the areas of which were not estimated in acres,' a procedure In the same fylde . . . the clere pyett' In the same fylde Another butt . . . In the same fylde other thow . . . Another in the same fylde A butt lyeing in a fylde called the newe close ... a hadland another butt . . . another butt lyeing in a fylde called unerbroke . . . other thow butt' lyeng in a fylde called the longe fylde . . . in the same fylde ... a hadland ... a roughst." 1 Cf. above, pp. 179-182. 2 Harl. MS. 2062. ' Cf. Add. Chars. 50008, 50040, 50304, cited below. In one instance, however, a lay transaction of 1322 refers to ten acres in Aston [iuxta Mondrum], which lay " in le quytenacres, le oldefeld, Ruycedyche, Aldecrofte et in le Wallefeld " (Add. Char. 49805). Once also Abbot Simon of St. Werburgh exchanged two messuages, two crofts, two lands, and two butts in " le hedfeld " for " iii acras et i rodam iacentes inter landas suas et unum assartum continens v acras et uuam rodam " (Harl. MS. 2062, f. 22b). 254 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS that emphasizes the importance of the selion as an agrarian unit. Strips described in this way were often located by furiongs, as in a midland terrier. A specification of ten of them at Claverton in the time of Edward I illustrates both characteristics.' Some selions lay in furlongs, others in fields, while still others, after a fashions prevalent in northwestern England, lay in areas named " Ulvesdale " and the " croft of Claverton." Another feature of thirteenth-century Cheshire charters, more striking than either of those Just mentioned, becomes apparent in a description of lands transferred at Newton-near-Chester. Twenty-one and one-half selions " in campis eiusdem villae " are characterized as follows: — " Tres seUones que vocantur le Cleylondes tres seUones que vocantur le st)rweylondes duas seUones que vocantur le Schouelebradlondes unam sehonem que vocatur le longhevedlond dimidiam sehonem que vocatur le Cleyhalflond unam sehonem que vocatur le Brocstanlond unam sehonem que vocatur le loustjTighevedlond unam sehonem que vocatur le Cleyhevedlond unam dimidiam landam lacentem iuxta eandem Cleyheved- lond duas sehones que vocantur le Putlondes duas sehones que vocantur le Bradelakelondes et tres dimidias sehones in Fregrene unam selionem que vocatur le styweylond unam sehonem que vocatur Edmundislond unam sehonem que vocatur le Schoterdichehevedlond ' Add. Char. 50008. The specification runs as follows: — " Decim seliones terre iacentes in campis de Claverton, viz: duas dimidias seyliones In Ulvesdale et unam seylionem iacentem super le stonihulle et unam seylionem iacentem super le Lowe et unam seylionem extra le Lowe lacentem in Brerifurlong et unam seylionem lacentem in crofto de Claverton et duas seyliones Iacentes in le Cruftinge et duas dimidias seliones Iacentes in le Wythines et duas dimidias seliones Iacentes supra le Leefeld iuxta campum de Ekleston et unam dimidiam seylonem lacentem In Longefurlong et unam dimidiam seylonem lacentem iuxta Swartingesfeld." CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 255 et totam illam terrain que vocatur le Bruches . . . inter terram . . . et terram.^ The noteworthy peculiarity here is the naming of the selions. In the case of the four headlands the use of individual appellations is, of course, not unusual. Specifications, however, do not stop with them, since the entire list is similarly distinguished. One can see why three adjacent selions, perhaps a small furlong, should be denominated Cleylondes, but it is different with the selion called Brpcstanlond and the half-selion called Cleyhalflond. Since most selions of the charter were named, the usage must have prevailed throughout the common field of Newton. If so, this cannot have been very great in extent. No midland township designated separately each of its two or three thousand selions, finding it task enough to name the furlongs. The nomenclature at Newton thus points to an open arable field of restricted area, one in which individual selions might assume importance. Still another characteristic of thirteenth-century Cheshire charters is the brevity of their descriptions of open field. The terriers cited above are exceptional in length, few others enumer- ating as many as six selions.^ To be sure, the selions were often not accompanied by messuages, and hence may not have been complete holdings. At times, however, the house is mentioned, as when St. Werburgh acquired at Chester half a burgage tene- ment to which were attached a selion and two butts,' or when at Coddington a messuage was accompanied by five " half-lands '' and a half-acre of meadow.^ Small grants to monasteries are, ' Add. Char. 50040, temp. Edw. I. 2 A typical grant to St. Werburgh is as follows (Harl. MS. 2062, £. 17): — " vi seliones in Eltoa, scilicet, unam selionem et dimidiam in campo qui dicitur Brom unam selionem in campo qui dicitur Bothum unatn selionem que . . . extenditur usque ad magnam viam et unam selionem que vocatur Naylont et unam selionem que vocatur crongeflont et dimidiam selionem que iacet versus metam de yuis.*' ' " Dimidiam burgagiam extra portam acquilonarem Cestrie el unam selionem, scilicet tertiam, a fossa iuxta viam que tendit versus flokeresbroc et ii bottas [buttas in the margin] iacentes inter terram suam et . . . " (ibid., f. 166). ' " Mesuagium cum una dimidia Landa iacenti inter terram . . . et terram . . ., et imam alteram dimidiam Landam iuxta Le Ladeway, et unam dimidiam 256 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS of course, numerous in midland cartularies. Yet longer enumera- tions are nearly always to be foimd in them, and the absence of such in the cartulary of St. Werburgh tends once more to show that large holdings in the fields were unusual. Not only is it possible to infer from thirteenth-century charters that Cheshire open fields were small, but these documents give no indication that the selions were ever grouped by fields. The nearest approach to such a suggestion is the location of three acres " in campo de Aston quarum una iacet super longum gale- won et alia super le middilfeld et tertia in campo versus trente." ^ The first of these field names, however, together with the small area transferred, does not argue strongly for a three-field arrange- ment. Such fields as occasionally appear in other terriers are likely to be coordinate with furlongs or with areas variously named. Nowhere did two or three larger fields like those of the midlands gather within their bounds the sehons which were con- veyed. Chiefly for this reason, as in the case of the counties already discussed in this chapter, we are justified in concluding that the midland system had no hold upon the borderland of the river Dee. It is possible, further, to discern in the charters of St. Werburgh that even ia the thirteenth century the abbots were busy exchang- ing and consoHdating parcels. Sometimes lands newly given to them lay near those which they already held. At Manley, for example, the two and one-half selions given by Robert Fitz Roger lay " in asponesfurlong, quarum una iacet iuxta seUionem que vocatur Aleyneshevedlond et aha iuxta seUionem quam henricus frater eius dedit dicto abbati aule propinquiorem et dimidia selho [est] propinquior terre dicti abbatis in eodem campo." 2 Elsewhere the abbots made exchanges. At Leese, Abbot Simon (1265-1289) gave in exchange for " iii acras et i rodam iacentes inter vi landas suas et xmum assartum " two messuages Landam proximam Le Ladeway, et duas dimidias Landas extendentes usque . . . Westmere cum una dimidia acra prati " (Add. Char. 50290). » Harl. MS. 2062, f. 66. 2 Ibid., £. 21 (1265-1289). CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 257 and two crofts " cum ii landis et ii buttis in le hedfeld." * At Bromborough, Abbot Radulphus (1141-c. 1157) exchanged on different occasions " unam sellionem et unam Buttam ... in Ranesfeld . . . pro una sellione iacenti in campo qui vocatur le Churchcroft; duas dimidias selliones que vocantur suchacre- sendes . . . pro una sellione et dimidia iacentibus in le chirche- crof t . . . ; unam dimidiam sellionem in manislawefeld . . . pro una sellione et dimidia iacenti in le chirchecroft." ^ Sometimes it is evident that the exchanges looked toward consolidation for both parties. The same abbot exchanged with " Henricus fihus heyle," at Weston, " pro iii selionibus in tachemedwe . . . sub crofto dicti Henrici ... iii seUones in chues . . . iuxta cultu- ram abbatis et unam foreram super morshul et dimidiam rodam super pastmeslande in territorio de Aston. . . . " ' Exchanges like these indicate a field system which was not rigid but which easily inclined to consolidation and enclosure. At Lawton a holding given to the abbey in the thirteenth cen- tury was already a compact area, comprising a messuage and garden " cum iui buttis ex una parte dicti gardini et aliis iiii ex altera iacentibus." * There is no reason why the open-field strips of a tenement, inconsiderable at best, should not have under- gone a process of consolidation; they were inclined toward it both by their small number and by the absence of any grouping of the selions by fields. Since consolidation was so brief a process and was opposed by no inflexible field arrangements, one need not be surprised that it was initiated before the end of the Middle Ages. Chester thus allies itself more closely with Wales than with the territory to the east. It appears as a county largely en- closed in the sixteenth century and almost entirely so in the eighteenth. Vestiges of open common field in Tudor surveys, however, suggest that at an earlier time most hamlets probably had a certain amount of it, and the thirteenth-century testimony, particularly that from the region near Chester, supports such a belief. This evidence reveals holdings that seldom comprised ' Harl. MS. 2062. f. 226. » Ibid., f. 8. » Ibid., f. 206. * Ibid., f. 24. 258 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS so many as a dozen intermixed selions, and township fields in which the strips were so few that at times each of them could attain the dignity of a special designation. Nowhere was there a grouping of strips by fields as in the midlands, and nowhere is found mention of rights of pasture over a fallow field. The arrangement was like that which in Scotland, Wales, and Ire- land was called runrig. Since in Cheshire there is no trace of continued or recurrent division of holdings among heirs, some early allotment of the common lands before the time of written records must have been final. In the twelfth and thirteenth century exchanges were being made and the first steps toward consolidation were already taking place. To the flexibility of Celtic open-field arrangements, therefore, is probably to be attributed the early enclosure of the arable in the county, so far as enclosure did not take place directly from the forest state. Such an explanation is further substantiated by the smaU size of most closes, as seen, for example, in the survey of Macclesfield manor.^ To some extent, then, the seventeenth- century appearance of the fields of the county is traceable to the early existence of runrig. Devon and Cornwall There are several Devonshire surveys dating from the late sixteenth or the early seventeenth century, but too frequently they omit exact information about the condition of the fields. A survey of Topsham, for instance, though usually explaining that the " parcelle " were closes and sometimes adding that they were arable, in about one-fourth of the instances leaves them undescribed.2 Since these undescribed parcels were relatively large, we may infer that the usual designation " clausa " ' C£. above, p. 250. 2 Rents, and Survs., Ro. 169 (1611). A typical holding is that of Helena Havile, widow, who had a house and stable with garden containing 2 acres; closes of arable called Butt parke and Sandell, containing 5 acres and one acre; other closes called Whittwell, Greenland, and Longland, each containing 2 acres; a parcel caUed the half -acre; a parcel of marsh containing 8 acres called Idons; and pasture in the marsh for twenty sheep. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 2$q was carelessly omitted.' One feels on safer ground in surveys like that of Sherford, in which all parcels are carefully labelled orchards, closes, or " parkes." ^ The application of the term " park " to a close of arable is characteristic of Devonshire, and its constant employment in the survey of Vielstone and Kingdon indicates the enclosed character of these townships.' Porlock, too, a Somersetshire township on the edge of Exmoor, resembled its Devonshire neighbors in being entirely enclosed.* Despite the testimony of most sixteenth-century documents to the enclosure of Devonshire fields, there is an occasional hint that unenclosed arable might still be found. Of the manors of the marchioness of Dorset, which were surveyed in 15 Henry VIII, most lay in Somerset, but some were in Cornwall and Devon. ^ Although none of the surveys of the Devon manors are very expHcit about the condition of the arable, it appears from the description of Brixham that many of the tenants held each one " furlong," " comprising twenty acres of pasture and ten of arable, and that appurtenant to each furlong was " communia in commimibus campis " for sixty sheep, two cows, and one horse.' The "communes campi" here pretty clearly bespeak open arable field, for the phrase was almost never appUed to the common waste, and where it occurs elsewhere in this group of surveys it refers to certain townships in Somerset which lay in open-field neighborhoods. Inasmuch as no similar remark about common fields is vouchsafed regarding the other five Devon and Cornish townships, these by impKcation were en- closed. Each of them contained more pasture than arable, but 1 To be sure, some six parcels were in Rushmore, but they were too large (7, 4, 5, 2, 5, and 3 acres respectively) to suggest open-field strips. The first three were arable, another was a close of pasture, while two are not described. 2 Add. MS. 2160S, £E. 36-43 (1606). The same volume contains (fif. 18-24) another survey of Sherford written in a hand earlier by a generation; but this one neglects to say whether its " farthings " were open or enclosed. ' Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 358, fit. 64-74, 6 Jas. I. The designations, for example, are North park, Lea park, Temsty park, Wall park. * Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 385, flf. 97-106, 17 Hen. VIII. * Ibid., ff. 112-208. Most important were Brixham, Woodford, and Shewte in Devon, and Trewerdreth, Trelawie, and Wadfast in Cornwall. ^ I. e. " ferling," for the meaning of which cf. below, pp. 264-7266. ' Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 385, f. 200 sq. 26o ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS arable and pasture differed little in annual value. Both were rated at from 12 d. to 16 d. the acre, whereas the arable of an open-field midland township was seldom worth more than 6 d. the acre. A survey of the extensive Cornish and Devon estates of Lord Dynham was made in 1566,' describing in considerable detail more than twenty manors, among others the great manor of Hart- land on the northwestern coast. Holdings here are located in large areas or by hamlets, and the parcels of which they were composed are described as closes. Such was the case with the typical holding printed by Mr. Chope, that of Agnes Dayman, situated at the hamlet of " Cheristawe." At Cheristawe were five similar tenements with areas of 21, iif, 21, 14J, and 25 acres, a total of 123 acres for the hamlet.^ No township of the manor had in it more holdings than this, and usually there were fewer. So far as can be seen, the manor of Hartland consisted of hamlets the fields of which were small and enclosed. A few phrases used in other of the Dynham surveys, however, demand attention. At Hsington, William Prowse held " with- out copy one holding with a garden and one ferUng of land, containing by estimation 30 acres, but he does not know where they are because they Ue among the lands of the lords and of George Fourde, esq. [lord of the other half of the manor]." * ' The MS. was in 1902 in the possession of C. D. Heathcote, of Porlock, and has been described by R. P. Chope in two papers published in the Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, etc., vols, xxxiv (1902) and xliii (1911). In the second paper, on "The Lord Dynham's Lands," Mr. Chope sketches summarily the surveys of most of the Devonshire estates; but in the first one, entitled " The Early History of the Manor of Hartland," he trans- cribes all details and illustrates locations by a valuable map. ' Ibid., xxxiv. 438: " Agnes Dayman, widow, . . . holds by copy dated . . . 13 Henry VIII ... a half-ferling and one clawe of land, with their appurtenances, in Cheristawe, . . . t6 which belong 1 house ; . ., I barn, i garden, and i orchard containing x rood 2 closes called the Crosse parkes containing 4 acres 1 close called Swetenham containing 2 acres I close called the Hill parke containing 6 acres X close bewest the towne containing 9 acres 1 close called ye Brodewey parke containing 3 acres X close called the Higher parke containing 2 acres I close called ye Lower parke containing 5 acres and in the meadow i acre." " Ibid., xliii. 278. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 26 1 In the account of another holding of this manor occur similar statements about intermixed parcels. The customary tenement of Agnes Orchard included " divers parcels of land called lez Shotes, lying in the common about the bounds called lez londscores with the lands of William Dyggen, customary tenant of this manor, containing in all 30 acres of land in the common of Idetordowne [Haytor Down]." ^ Perhaps the translation should run, " divers parcels . . . lying in common " (if the orig- inal is in communia). However that be, the significant item, apart from the assertion that certain lands were intermixed, is impHcit in the phrase " lez londscores." In the same manor Hugh Dyggen also held " divers parcels of land lying together about the Londscore next Idetordowne, containing in all 60 acres." ^ Explanation of the meaning of the phrase " lez londscores " is to be had from an item relative to the Dynham manor of Wood- huish in Brixham. Here, the survey notes, " the landes ... for the most parte lyeth by londes score in twoe commen feldes." The holdings were rated in ferlings, to each of which were assigned some 27 acres of " arable land lying at large in the fields and lez Breches." Altogether there were 652 acres.' These state- ments point clearly to open common fields in which parcels lay intermixed, or " by londescore." The use of the latter phrase at Ilsington, therefore, accords with the declaration that Agnes Orchard's lands lay intermixed with those of William Dyggen. Upon two of the twenty-five manors or estates of Lord Dyn- ham which were situated in Devon and Cornwall we are thus assured of the existence of common fields.* At Woodhuish in Brixham they were extensive, and Brixham, it will be remem- bered, was that one of the Devonshire manors of the marchioness of Dorset in which common fields have already been discerned. Brixham and Woodhuish are adjacent townships lying on the southern coast at the mouth of the river Dart. ' Devon. Assoc, etc., Trans., xliii. 279-280. 2 Ibid. » Ibid., 281. * There were also " common meadows," as at Wilmington (ibid., 274). Nearly aU the Dynham manors comprised wastes upon which the tenants had rights of common. 262 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS At Ilsington the intermixed lands lay on the edge of a common waste called Haytor Down. Equally unusual in situation, though in a different way, is the " Great Field " at Braunton. This Slater has described,' but a fuller account is available.^ Braunton is a village in northwestern Devon, near Barnstaple, lying a httle inland from the estuary of the river Taw. Bordering the river and the sea are marsh lands known as Braunton Burrows. Between the marshes and the village Hes the " Great Field." " Its surface," runs the local account, " is a dead flat rising but little above the level of the marshes, and the soil is doubtless by origin a natural reclamation from the bed of the estuary. The whole field is under arable cultivation in small unenclosed plots." The Braunton rate book of 1889 states that its area was then 354J acres, occupied by 56 proprietors and lying in 491 strips. The strips, each containing from one-half an acre to two acres, were gathered into sixteen shots,' and those of each proprietor were non-contiguous. All holdings were " imqualified freehold, subject to no seigniorial rights or claims." The lord of the manor had in 1875 owned a considerable portion of the Great Field in seventy-three plots containing each about an acre, but he afterward sold them. Slater says that there are no common rights over the field. The pecuHarities manifested in this description give a pos- sible clue to the origin of the Great Field. Its position on the 6iap and its low-lying character suggest that it is land at some time reclaimed from the marshes; the two other manors in Braunton not adjacent to the marshes have no open field. Fur- ther, the tenure by which the field is held points in the same direction: only newly-reclaimed lands would be Hkely to be free- hold, subject to no seigniorial rights. Probably in Heu of such rights the lord of the manor had received some fraction of the parcels. The extensive scattering of the strips may have been due to the gradual reclamation of the area, each furlong having been subdivided by lord and freeholders as it was improved. 1 English Peasantry, p. 250. 2 Devon. Assoc, etc., Trans., xxi. 201 (i88g). ' Lime tree, Harditch, Renpit, Long Hedge Lands, Broadpath, Lane end, Cutta- burrow, Higher Thorn, etc. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 263 Fertile alluvial land would need little fallowing, and continuous cropping would leave no opportunity for the exercise of the right of pasturage during a fallow year. If these conjectures be correct, Braunton Great Field was of relatively recent origin. Perhaps the "londscores" near the common at Ilsington were also recently improved lands, in this instance taken from the waste. In Cornwall, as in Devon, the Jacobean surveys teU of en- closed townships, occasionally hinting at the existence of common arable fields. A long account of the manor of Launceston, which describes leaseholds in many hamlets, always refers to the parcels of the tenements as closes, sometimes adding that they were meadow or pasture.^ In a companion survey, however, a signif- icant statement is made relative to Leigh Durrant. " Some parte of this Mannor," the surveyor explains, " Heth in Common fields which is hardly founde in any Mannor of his highness eels in Cornewall; " ^ but no description of these common fields is vouch- safed. We come upon others in a survey of Carnanton,' where, in 4 James I, 70 of the 960 acres accoxmted for still lay in some seven " common fields," of which at least three were closes. Down close contained 12 acres, held by four persons; Furze close, 8f acres in the hands of three tenants; and New close, 5 acres with a single occupant. The remaining " common fields " were West, North, South, and Churchway, each having an area of from 5 to 20 acres.* Five times the acres in common field or common close are said to be " in stichmeale," a phrase pointing to the intermixture of tenants' parcels. If we inquire into the origin of this situation, the names of the conimon closes at once suggest appropriation from the waste. Other items in the survey indicate that a " Downe " had recently been allotted and improved. Twelve times there is reference to acres of common pasture " in le Downs " or " in communi campo vocato 1 Land Rev., M. B. 207, ff. 149-213, s Jas. I. 2 Ibid., f. 426- ' Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 388, ff. 135-171- * In West field six tenants had 195 acres; in North field seven had isf acres; in Churchway four had 3§ acres; in South field two had $\ acres. A few acres lay simply " in communi campo." 264 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS le Downes "; and occasionally this "communis pastura" changes into " terra arabiUs et pastura," from which it is only a step to the " Downe close " with its holdings always arable. This description, joined with that of Braunton Great Field and that of the landscores at Ilsington, seems ground for believ- ing, not only that the common fields of Devon and Cornwall in the sixteenth century were few, but that some of them were not of ancient origin. About the antiquity of certain of the fields at Carnanton, and of the stiU larger ones at Brixham and Wood- huish, we know little. Nor have we information about the distribution of parcels in these Devon and Cornish fields, save that given by the nineteenth-century appearance of Braimton Great Field. This had by no means a two- or three-field aspect, the tenants' parcels being apparently distributed throughout it with the same irregularity as prevailed in the counties of the northwest. Turning to the earlier Devon and Cornish evidence, we find two local units much in evidence, the " ferling " and the Cornish " acre." In general utihty the ferling corresponded with the midland virgate, replacing it as the fourth part of a larger imit. The larger tinit itself was sometimes called a virgate; in one of the fines, from a total of six virgates at Dene there were sub- tracted two ferlings and two and one-half acres,' while near Exeter we hear of the transfer of a half-virgate and a ferling.^ In Cornwall, according to an early fine which carefully states that the sum of half an acre and two ferlings equalled an acre, the ferhng was the fourth part of a Cornish acre.' Its area of course varied as did that of the imit of which it was the fourth part. At Brixham, as we have seen, it contained 30 acres;* and at the end of the sixteenth century this was its size at Wood- brooke, at Allerton, and at Sherford.^ In a Devon fine of 22 Henry III three ferhngs equalled 43 acres.* In Cornwall, in 1337, ' Ped Fin., 40-9-164 (12 John). 2 Cott. MSS., Vitel. D IX, f. 1686 (a fourteenth-century cartulary). ' Ped. Fin., 31-2-20. < Cf. above, p. 259. ' Rents, and Survs., Portf. 6/61; Add. MS. 21605, ff- iQi 24. " Ped. Fin., 40-12-226. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 265 the ferKng was said to contain from 4 to 5 acres, the Cornish acre being only four times as great; ^ but in a rental of 6 James I the Cornish acre was larger, three-fourths of it con- taining 70 EngUsh acres.2 Thus, at different times and in different places the ferUng varied in extent between 4 and 30 Enghsh acres. Whatever may have been its size, the important question as regards field systems is whether it was a compact area or was composed of scattered strips. The best evidence on this point is from certain descriptions contained in a fifteenth-century cartulary of Torre abbey. At one time we discover that a half-ferUng of unknown size is completely bounded as one block; ^ again a ferhng is said to he " propinquior ad orientem terre pre- dictum canonicorum " ; elsewhere a half-ferling Hes "in hoc- rigge," and another half-ferhng " in parte orientaH de Chinrigge iuxta aquam";* finally we hear of a half-ferling " unde una clawa [close] vocatur Dodemmannesland et aha clawa vocatur Wluesland." ° In an early fine twelve ferhngs of the manor of Coombe are so described as to imply that they were blocks in different parts of the village floor, and that with them were trans- ferred the resident viUein households. In Coleford there was a ferling and a half, at Tocumbe a ferling and a half, at Fostefelde two ferhngs, at Haldestane four, at Fishull one, at Blakewille one, at la Grutte one.^ In Limerick, in 22 Henry III, two ferhngs were " in Lange furlang " and " in Sholdedune." ' Nowhere ' Sir John Maclean, The Parochial and Family History of the Deanery of Trigg Minor (3 vols., London, 1873-79), iii. 45 sq. ' Rents, and Survs., Portf. 2/33. " Exch. K. R., M. B. ,19, f. 256: " lUud dimidium ferlingum terra . . . que se extendit a fossato . . . usque magnum iter . . . quod ducit versus Teyngnewike . . . et iacet iuxta terram ecdesie de Hanok et se extendit usque regale iter quod ducit versus hywis et iacet iuxta terram W. de Ferndon . . . et iterum iuxta pratum sub Asselonde . . . et iterum iuxta cornerium curtillagii ubi facte sunt divise." * Ibid., f. sib- ' Ibid., f. 33*. * Joseph Hunter, Fines sive Pedes Finium (Record Com., 2 vols., 1835-44), ii. 46 (10 Rich. I). Coombe and Coleford are two adjacent Devonshire hamlets, but the other names are not applied to hamlets in this neighborhood. ' Ped. Fin., 40-12-239. 266 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS in the early fines and charters is there anything to indicate that the ferUng was composed of acre or half-acre or quarter-acre strips.' Devon and Cornwall thus assume in the thirteenth- as well as in the sixteenth-century documents the appearance of counties the arable lands of which were very largely enclosed. The feet of fines and the charters from this corner of England are in marked contrast with those from the midlands and even with those from the northwest. From all other English counties (except perhaps from Kent and Essex) a considerable number of fines and charters disclose on examination at least a few which record each its list of small non-adjacent parcels of arable land. The exceptional character of the Devon and Cornish documents would lead us to beUeve that even rimrig was un- known in these two counties, were it not for the testimony of the sixteenth-century surveys.'' How uncertain is this testimony relative to the extent and antiquity of open arable fields we have seen, but about the existence of intermixed strips it is clear. It suggests that Devon and Cornwall more- closely resembled Cheshire and Wales than any other region thus far examined. In the valley of the Dee were townships which had common open arable fields, small in extent, Hke those of the southwest. So far as the latter were really ancient, a characteristic possibly attributable to those of Brixham, it is perhaps allowable to call them Celtic in their affinities and to assume that enclosure occurred early, as it did in most parts of Wales. With these inferences, the most probable that we can draw in view of the perplexing evidence, Devon and Cornwall take their place along with the other counties of western or northern England which in their field arrangements were subject to Celtic influence. ' A parcel of land in a suburb of Exeter was once designated " unum sullonem " (Cott. MS., Vitel. D IX, f. 138), but it may not have been part of a ferling or have lain in open field. 2 It will also be noticed that in the phrases quoted in the preceding paragraph the term " rigge " was used to designate a furlong. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 267 Conclusion A SUMMARY of the results of the preceding examination of field arrangements in the counties of the Celtic border is now possible. It will be remembered that Scottish, Irish, and Welsh fields, differing as they might in some respects, yet had in common that which makes it possible to speak of a Celtic field system. Although this system was, without doubt, originally one of open fields, the absence of enclosure did not constitute its distinctive characteristic. Non-Celtic fields were often open, and Celtic fields, even after enclosure, sometimes bore traces of their origin. More noteworthy than the absence of enclosure was the size of the Celtic township or townland, the continued subdivision of it among co-heirs or co-tenants, the distribution throughout it of the parcels of the tenants' holdings, and the method by which it was tilled. In the counties considered in this chapter certain of these characteristics appear more clearly than others. The small township with its hamlet settlement we have seen, behind various disguises, revealed in Cumberland documents. Since other enumerations manifest a tendency to be similarly obscure, it is diflacult to determine from them alone the region characterized by this form of occupation. In the long seventeenth- century survey of the Lancashire manor of Rochdale, for instance, the hamlets themselves were so complex as to contain within their somewhat spacious boundaries several nuclei of settlement.' ' Henry Fishwick, Survey of the Manor of Rochdale (Chetham Soc, 1913). One division of the manor, known as Spotland, contained six hamlets and " Spotlande towne," the areas being specified as follows (pp. 163 sq.) : — Hamlet Free Tenants Acres Copyhold Tenants Acres Lease- holders Acres Acres of Common Waste Falinge Chadwick 13 12 29 12 11 6 I 255 495 1,266 796 430 2,588 2,382 17 40 40 9 47 6 121 312 558 108 726 160 I I I 5 19 33 17 3 Spotland (towne) Wolstenholme Healey 672 823 Whitworth Rossendale The units of settlement named on the modern map as lying within the above areas number some fifty. 268 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS In view of the deceptive brevity of written documents, it is best, vtnless in each instance it be possible to investigate the stated areas, to take the less specific evidence which is furnished by the modern map. From an examination of this we shall have no hesitation in pronouncing that the counties examined in the foregoing chapter, except Northumberland, were characterized by the hamlet type of settlement. Indeed, we shall have to include other counties as well, a circumstance that leads to a further distinction. Although the hamlet was typical of Celtic settlement, its appearance was not necessarily accompanied by a Celtic field system. Two counties of the Welsh border, Herefordshire and Shropshire, have already illustrated the divergence. On the map they are dotted with tiny groups of houses, which, though often bearing EngKsh names, are typical hamlets, while an analysis of the parish of Harden has shown us several of these grouped into a larger unit. Yet the tillage of Herefordshire and Shrop- shire hamlet fields was similar to that of the midlands; and, though irregularities soon arose in these fields and the decay of the midland system occurred earlier than it did farther east, the situation in the two counties assures us that hamlet settlements with inconsiderable fields did not necessarily imply Celtic runrig. A second characteristic of the Celtic field system was its readi- ness to subdivide holdings,' farms, or townlands among co-heirs or co-tenants in such a way that each received a share in every quality of the soil and held his arable strips under a form of intermixed occupancy known as runrig or rundale. In Scotland and Ireland such subdivision continued throughout the eighteenth century; in Wales the co-tenancy of the fourteenth century was abandoned in the sixteenth. In northern and western England little evidence is as yet available to demonstrate the prevalence there of the transmission of land to co-heirs; scholars have merely noted that the custom of certain sokes or manors in Shropshire, Herefordshire, and Monmouthshire at a relatively late time pre- scribed transmission by gavelkind.' Until further investigation ' T. Robinson, The Common Law of Kent, or the Customs of Gavelkind (sth ed., by C. I. Elton and H. J. H. Mackay, London, 1897), p. 33. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 269 has determined the localities in which such a usage prevailed and the degree to which Celtic influence is responsible therefor,' no generalizations are possible. From what evidence we have it would seem that in most districts of the north and west the sub- division of socage and villein holdings, if it ever prevailed, early gave place to impartible succession, the custom which from the thirteenth century at least was usual in the midlands. Of greater assistance in estimating Celtic influence upon the field system of English counties is a third trait of Celtic agricul- ture. This is the irregular disposition of the scattered parcels of the tenants' holdings throughout the cultivated area of a town- ship; for, if it be assumed that an early subdivision of the land among co-heirs became permanent in the Anglicized border counties, such disposition would be for us the only reminder of the earlier field-history of the region. If it chanced that the dispersed parcels were in certain places reconsolidated (or if in some townships a division had never taken place), we should expect to find there enclosed areas. When, consequently, Devon, Cornwall, and Cheshire appear as counties largely enclosed in the sixteenth century, this phenomenon is exphcable as a normal manifestation of the Celtic system. If some traces of arable common fields still remained within their bounds, these too are normal phenomena. Although in the southwest some such fields may have been due to improvement of marsh or down-land, other tracts are not easily so explained. At Brixham in Devon, as well as at several places in Cheshire, there seem to have been ancient arable fields that had long been characterized by inter- mixed holdings. Cheshire terriers of the thirteenth century give details which enable us to see that these fields were not of the midland type. In structure they were, on the contrary, like * Two vague passages in the laws of Cnut which may imply that partible suc- cession was the Anglo-Saxon usage of the eleventh century are as follows: " [If a man die intestate] Ac beo be his dihte seo aeht gescyf t swytSe rihte wife 7 cildum 7 nehmagum, aelcum be faere maetSe, fe him to gebyrige. . . . And se man, \>e on |)am fyrdunge aetforan his hlaforde fealle, . . . fon fa erfenuman to lande 7 to aehtan 7 scyftan hit swySe rihte " (Cnut II 70, 78 [1027-1034], Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 356, 364). Chapter 34 of the Lets Willelme (1090-1135) is of similar purport: " Si home mort senz devise, si departent les enfans l'erit6 entre sei per uwel " (ibid, i, 514). Cf. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 145. 270 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS those of Lancashire and Cumberland, regions in which open fields survived longer and are more fully described. If we turn to these two northern counties, in neither do we find such a grouping of scattered parcels as the two- or three-field system imposed. In them the strips of the holdings lay, to be sure, dispersed throughout the arable area, but the arrangement can properly be called nothing more than runrig, since nowhere is there any grouping by fields, whether two or four, three or six. In Cumberland it is even possible that the strips of a holding were at times segregated within one part of the township's arable. Whatever may have been the usual juxtaposition of a tenant's arable strips in all these western counties (and about this there is still considerable doubt), the absence of the midland alignment is a characteristic common to the field arrangements of Cumberland and Lancashire, to those of Cornwall, Devon, and Cheshire, and to those of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Further emphasis is put upon this characteristic by the absence in terriers and surveys of any intimation that the villagers desired to have a continuous stretch of their intermixed arable lying fallow at one time, as was the practice under the midland system. Al- though one hears much about rights of pasture over common, moor, and fell, such rights are never specified relative to a fallow field. Thus pasturage arrangements in the coimties under con- sideration do not point to midland usages any more than do the relative positions assumed by the strips of the customary holdings. If in both these respects the counties of the northwest and the southwest show Celtic rather than midland fields, of a final characteristic of Scottish agriculture — namely, the temporary tillage of parcels of the waste or outfield during a series of years, followed by an abandonment of the same parcels for a corresponding period of time — they furnish little evidence. To find unmistakable traces of such a custom in England it is necessary to turn to Northumberland, where its existence is established by two or three brief descriptions. Without much doubt the same practice prevailed in Cumberland, since sixteenth- century surveys record there the subdivision among tenants of areas newly improved from the waste. It seems likely, further- CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 27 1 more, that the custom fell into disuse much earUer in the English counties than in Scotland. We should, perhaps, think of the two regions as practicing the same system at first but develop- ing it differently. A Scottish township continued to treat its outfield in the primitive manner, but also set aside a small infield, which by the use of manure was kept under contiiluous tillage; a township of the Enghsh border coimties set aside no infield, but tilled in a uniform manner all land which at any time came under the plough. In England, however, a developing agriculture, since it did not create an infield, began, we may suppose, to demand that the periods of productivity of the improved furlongs be prolonged at the expense of the periods of fallow. In due course as much as two-thirds of the available arable may have been brought imder yearly cultivation. If this were achieved, it would become easy to shift the location of the fallow furlongs so as to bring them together into a compact fallow field. Thereby the township would practically adopt the three- field system, a transformation which may at times have takfen place in Northumberland. If this was the case, the county is to be looked upon as transitional in its field arrangements, marking the passage from the Celtic to the midland system. Whatever may be the value of this hypothesis, it seems pretty clear that the Celtic system made its influence felt in one way or another throughout all the counties discussed in this chapter, and in all probabihty throughout Monmouth, Westmorland, and western Yorkshire as well. Generally speak- ing, then, the counties of the northwest and southwest, none of them far removed from Celtic lands, constitute that part of England which came within the sphere of influence of the Celtic field system. CHAPTER VII •The ELentish System It will be convenient to begin our examination of the field arrange- ments of the southeast of England with a study of Kent. Doubt has been expressed whether this county was ever in open field. Meitzen, with an eye upon its scattered farmhouses, which con- . trast with the nucleated villages of open-field districts, suggested a field system of Celtic origin, similar to that which, he thought, prevailed between the Rhine and the Weser and was largely one of enclosures.! Slater found no parhamentary acts for the en- closure of arable in Kent;^ and in 1794 Boys was able to report to the Board of Agriculture, " There are no common fields in this county, and but few common pastures in this part of it [the east]." ' As early as the sixteenth century, indeed, Kent is referred to as one of the counties "wheare most Inclosures be,"^ a statement that may be verified by several manorial surveys from the end of that century and the begiiming of the next. A " measure- ment " of three manors in the parishes of Cranbrook, Goudhurst, and Hawkhurst describes large demesnes and " fermes " appar- ently all enclosed.' Similarly enclosed were the manors of Nether Bilsington (near Romney Marsh and consisting largely of marsh and woodland), Neates Court (in pasture), and Sond- risshe.' Throughout a hundred pages of sixteenth-century sur- ' Siedelung und Agrarwesen, ii. 122, 54. ' English Peasantry, p. 230. ' J. Boys, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Kent (London, 1794), p. 44. Eighteenth-century references to open-field parcels are rare, although they do occur. In 1770, for example, a Mr. Holmes at Henhurst owed tithes from 6 J acres of fallow, which was " part of fa] common field " {Archaeologia Cantiana, xxvii. 124). * John Hales, A Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England (1549, ed. E. Lamond, Cambridge, 1893), p. 49. » Rawl. MS., B 341, ff. 31 sq. (1387). * Add. MS. 37019 (1567); Rents, and Survs., Portf. 9/43, 6 Jas. I; Land Rev., M. B. 258, ff. 154-164, I Mary. 272 THE KENTISH SYSTEM 273 veys relating to Kentish manors or townships and collected in one volume, the tale, except for an occasional item, is one of enclo- sures.i A long survey of Northbourn likewise speaks almost entirely of closes.'' All this, however, does not necessarily imply that sixteenth-century closes in Kent formed coippact estates, as one might at first infer. All Souls College, as owner of several Kentish estates, had maps of them made in the years 1 589-1 593. On the maps of the prop- erties which lay in and about Romney Marsh, the parcels, both large and small, appear as plats rather then open-field strips and for the most part were consolidated.' With two manors which were situated near the mouth of the Medway in the northern part of the county the case was different. The manor of Horsham, in the villages of Upchurch, Alteram, and Ham, lay to some extent intermixed with other properties, and this characteristic is pro- nounced in the plan of a manor at Newington,"* reproduced in the accompanying sketch. Such lack of contiguity between the parcels of a holding as is shown in these instances suggests an earUer system not charac- terized by consolidation. That sixteenth-century closes were sometimes of recent origin is clear from an account of the manor of Westcourt or Sibertswold, which, it is said, consisted of demesnes and services. " The demesnes lye contiguously to another and they are all now in Enclosures "; the services were due from some 420 acres in sixteen closes, " for the most part lately made." ^ Although, according to a long survey, the manor of Eltham consisted largely of closes, there are ref- erences to an East field in which seven tenants still held parcels containing from ^ acre to 2 acres each.'' ' Land Rev., M. B. ig6, 6 Jas. I. The exceptional items tell us, for example, that at Faversham were 8 acres of arable " in communi campo vocato le Abbey wroiigs," andat Shoreham ij acres of arable " in communi campo vocato Shorham hill" (ff. 116, 117J). 2 Stowe MS. 858, 6 Jas. I. There is, however, mention of one acre and ten poles " in communi campo vocato Ashley field " (f. 39). ' AU Souls TjTpus Collegii, iii, maps 8-14. * Ibid., maps i (Horsham), 4 (Newington). ' Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, f. 7 (1616). « Exch. K. R., M. B. 44, S. 406-506 (1605). Koilm'oti riHU ofnu Kstiilo of Ml Souls Tollour, (>\t\>nl, Ijhitf \\\ Nowiiitttoii iitul I'liohiin'li, Ko\il. IMtil. «,»■( IK>w.W« .>• i Mull' N llnilMviilv H.. ,!.■ lS'kk»». * ""■• 1'" NwwUn lt.\S ! ^ HI •»iil. ISilWn'.. ' --,^ ^' ■" /t-M.| \...'*"' /.j'« « Una* I Irail yy (I / VTIlllMtl »')»■' 11,,,, .V.,„ „„„ Il...«lr«il\ ( n mi \ ' ""W iiii,.,i 111 1 nil \ /^ "»l'l I"' tl.,l,t llh,.,l^ W»il«Ml'„llH« ^ M, l\*,,li„>>« M„lil / '-' '' ")' II. I lll>.Wl,l,lRl iiiiii „r illll,)! I'l.l- tll.,||.'||k "!• "» ' i M, 1V.„I ""■ " ".'" M.,1.,,1WU,. , I » II ' ' ''' 1 , '. Ili,li> „l .,., n '"'„. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 275 Full and convincing U^slimony to the existence of open-field arable in Kent api)ears in cx-rtain early Beventeenth-century surveys relating to St. Margaret at Cliffc, Guston, Deal, and Sutton, all situjited in th(; southeastern |)art of the county. A terrier of the glebe of St. Margaret at Cliffe, dated 1645, de- scribes it as lying in 31 furlongs, in each of which were from two to live small j)areels, each jmrcel lying between the lands of other proprietors.' In jjimvine furlong, for example, were four separate strips of glebe containing res|){;c,tively 1 acre and 22 perches, 3 roods and 1 o perches, i rood and 3 perches, i^ acres and 15 perches. An earlier account of 1616 exjjlains that the same glebe " lyeth in severail Shotts or furlongs of land . . . lying intermixed with th(' lands of (he; Tttnants of Ihc mannor of Reach." '^ Elsewhere we learn that the " manor of Reach doth consist of demesnes and services and lyelh in the ])arish of St. Margaretts at Cliffe neere Dover. . . . 'i'he demesnes are of three sorts - Inclosed J^ands, Oul lands or Downc !>ands, and Commons. . . . These o|)ei) fields and downe do incomj)asse the inclosed lands and mansion house. . . . " ' ("learly the so-called " outlands " con- sisted of intermixed arable strips lying in ojK'n field. In 16:1 the demesne lands of the manor of Guston near Dover were of " two sortes, inclosed or lying in parcclls in open fielde. 'J'he inclosed lands some ly contiguously one to another and the rest lye seviTcd amongst other mens lands." The contiguous en- closed demesne comprised 96 acres; the severed but enclosed, jOJ acres; the unenclosed, 38 acres in 18 parcels. Of the tenants' holdings 54 acres were enclosed (whether in contiguous parcels is not stated) ;i,nd 63 acres lay in 72 i)arcels in open field, the open lields bearing such names as the C"he()uer I'^nd, the liutts, Church field, and " Le Shott sive Kuriong iuxta Uanke." '' In contrast with this estate, another " reputed " manor called Frith in the same parish was " onely in Demesne . and the whole de- mesne lands lye all together in an oblicjue iyne and no man hath any lands intermixed with the lands of the same manour." " ' KrnlH. unci Siirvs., I'orlf. ij/sj. " ICx.li. K. K., M. H. 40, f. 47. « Ibid., f. () (lOid). < Ibi.l, (T. 3 sq. » Ibid., f. m- 276 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Full detail for all tenants' holdings is given in the survey of the manor of Dale, or Court Ashe, in the parish of Deal.' These lay almost entirely in open field. The first tenant had $6\ acres in 23 parcels lying in 16 fields,''" the second 18 acres in 20 parcels in 13 fields, the fourth 25! acres in 18 parcels in 14 fields, and so on. Typical among the field names were Scotten Tyght, Le Chequer, Long Tyght, Woo furlong. West furlong super le Downe, Keetwheet, Goldfrid, and Upland. In the neighboring township of Sutton, the archbishop of Canterbury's land consisted both of parcels in enclosed fields lying among other men's lands and of parcels in open fields. The open fields were named Pising field, Barley Downe, Chequer end, the Butts, the North end, and the East hill. In them rent-paying tenants also had parcels.' These four parishes, St. Margaret, Guston, Deal, and Sutton, all he in the high down-lands of southeastern Kent, downs which today are stiU largely open. The surveys are relatively late, dating from the early seventeenth century. An apparently reasonable inference, then, would be that we are here deahng with stretches of common land somewhat recently improved and distrib- uted with an attempt at eqmty among the several tenants. Yet why subdivide so minutely and separate so persistently ? The glebe in Limvine furlong at St. Margaret might as well have been one four-acre parcel as four smaller ones, and an eighteenth- century division of a common would have made it such. The actual situation in the survey bespeaks the type of mind which subdivided the fields of the midlands, and suggests that the ar- rangement in Kent was not altogether recent when the surveys were made. This inference is not without the support of earlier documents. In 4 Richard II, Thomas Menesse of Dale (in the parish of Deal) granted land as foUows: — In Dale: " una roda terre iacet in campo vocato longetheghe tres rode iacent in loco vocato Dodeham ' Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, ff. 8-11, 14 Jas. I. ^ One parcel contained i8 acres, one si', the others were small. •' Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, flE. 1-2 (1616). TEE KENTISH SYSTEM 277 una roda et dimidia atte Berwhe una roda et dimidia iacent in campo vocato Dode- ham." In Sholdon: " una roda et dimidia iacent in loco vocato Kete- wode tres rode et dimidia iacent particulariter in campo vocato Scholdonesfeld una acra et una roda iacent in duabus parcellis apud lyden et predicta pastura pro quatuor vaccis iacet in marisco vocato CoUosschepemerch. . . ." ' Since the field names at Dale also occur in the survey of 14 James I as Long Tyght, Dodham, and Beere Tyght, the conditions of the seventeenth century seem to be carried back to the fourteenth. It is desirable, however, to secure testimony from parts of Kent which do not consist mainly of downs. In a hand of Henry VIII is written a survey of Sutton at Hone, one of the archbishop's manors in the northwestern part of the county, some twenty miles east of London and five miles from the Thames.^ The demesne, which comprised 642 acres, was enclosed, but of the 424 acres held by the freehold tenants at least 93 lay intermixed in 49 par- cels in a half-dozen fields. These fields bore the names Church Down, Southfeld, Northfeld, Battesdene, Bradfeld, Jordanes Croft. Each of the last three was shared by only two tenants, but elsewhere the subdivision was more complex. Southfeld was divided among five tenants holding respectively in acres 2} in 3 parcels, 6f in 2 parcels, 4I in 3 parcels, 14 in 2 parcels, 29I in 12 parcels (the 1 2 once having been attached to as many as four tenements); Northfeld had four tenants, holding i, \, f, i\ acres (the last in 3 parcels) ; Church Down fell to three tenants, whose acres numbered 2I, 4I in 2 parcels, and io| in 9 parcels. This distribution of a tenant's parcels throughout fields appears quite as noticeably in an early sixteenth-century terrier of the lands of the heirs of WilUam Hexstall, Kt., at Hoo St. Mary's, a ■ Rawl. MS., B 335 (Reg. Hosp. St. Barth. Dovorie). 2 Treas. of Receipt, M. B. 172. 278 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS township between the mouth of the Thames and that of the Medway. The 36 acres in question comprised 14 acres adjacent to the messuage, 3 acres of meadow in a neighboring township, and 24 small parcels in 18 places which look much like open field.i Such descriptions from two northern townships suggest that there was at times in this part of the county considerable sub- division of certain holdings into small scattered parcels, and this aspect of the situation recurs in terriers and surveys of the four- teenth and fifteenth centuries. At Lewisham, near Greenwich, there is twice recorded the transfer of parcels that lay in the same field.^ At St. Mary's Cray and Orpington, also near Greenwich, a conveyance of 40 acres, dated 26 Edward III-, enumerates ii\ acres Ijdng in crofts, iij acres " in diversis parti- culis in campo vocato Burfeld," and the remaining acres in ten other places, several of which are called campi? Two instructive charters relative to lands in or near Thanet are recorded in a ' The distribution was as follows (Rents, and Survs., Portf. 1/4) : — Acres Roods (Virgae) Day's-works ( = -^ Roods) In Leyf eld I 9 " Cuffeld IS " Trinite ij " Wadishawe 2 i S " Halles I 8 " Sporadis 3 " Perfeld 1 .. 3 " Ryf eld I . , . . in 3 parcels ** Bamef eld 3 " Newlond I 5 " le Skeme i 8 " Padpole I I . . in 2 parcels « Mershefeld .. 8} " Clerkyncroft 1 8i " Fedelers 3 5i " Greydon 6i ** Skwalmeston 2\ 1 6} in 3 parcels luxta Waterlokestret 3 2 In the first instance there are five acres, of which " una pars iacet in campo vocato Chatefeld in uno loco et alia pars in eodem campo in alio loco et tertia pars iacet in campo qui vocatur hethefeld." The second grant relates to " una dimidia acra terre in campo qui vocatur Estclune . . . ate myddelheg cum tota terra quam habet in eodem campo Ate gore " (Cott. MS., Otho B XIV, ff. 79, 81). ' MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Lib. B, f. 18. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 279 fourteenth-century cartulary of St. Augustine's abbey. In the parish of St. Peter's 19I acres lay in 9 parcels, each located be- tween the lands of persons other than the owner (e. g., " due acre iacent inter terram . . . et terrain . . . "). At Chislett 4 acres in 3 parcels were similarly bounded, and other 4 in 4 parcels were assigned to different fields.^ Finally, an extended terrier of lands just outside of Canterbury, inserted in a fourteenth- century hand in another register of St. Augustine's, describes six- teen furlongs which constituted the " Tenura de Esther' infra libertatem." ^ In each furlong are parcels, usually of | acre to 4 acres, held by various tenants of the archbishop of Canterbury, the prior of Dover, and the abbot of St. Augustine's. There can be little doubt here about the existence of intermixed parcels, or, considering the grouping by furlongs, about the existence of open fields. This fourteenth-century evidence finds its prototype in thir- teenth-century feet of fines. One of these, dated 21 Herury III, so describes four acres and four roods in Iwade, near the mouth of the Medway, as to give the impression that they were ' Cott. MS., Claud. D X, ff. 104J, 1346, 1626. The last enumeration is as follows: — " Due acre et una perticata iacent in campo qui vocatur Herste et tres perticate iacent in campo qui dicitur Meredale et tres perticate iacent in loco qiu dicitur Calespotle et una perticata iacet in campo de teghe." 2 Cott. MS., Faust. A I, £f. 1016-106. The following is the allotment of the acres of the first six furlongs (A. A. = abbot of St. Augustine's, P. D. = prior of Dover, A. C. = archbishop of Canterbury) : — In forlan- In forlan- Id f Orlando In forlando In f Orlando go be- do by- qui dicitur qui dicitur bynorthe In soutli Dorthe Sharp- Uxeaste- Lytildene Clyffor- Oeswey hesweye nesse crouche Drove lang Thomas Rotyng ... 4 A.A. .... .... .... .... .... Johnde Gustone.. 3 liA.A. 2JP.D. liA.A. i-|-i-|-i P.D. iP.D.,3A.A. 2iA.A. 3 A.A. .... .... f-1-JA.C. Richard Poldeme.. 4P.D 4past.A.C. 6past.,i}A.A 8 past. P.D. tP.D. 2i past. P.D. i P.D. liP.D. 2 P.D. JohndeBer 2 P.D. 2 P.D. 2JP.D. lA.C. 3iA.A. 2-I-1P.D. liA.C. siP.D. i-l-iP.D. 3 past. P.D. QuikemandeBer. . liA.C 2 past. A.C. SA.C. Simon Danyel ... . liA.C I A.C. i-f3PD. fP.D. ' iJP.D. .... J A.C. I A.C. Stephen Swanton J-FJP.D. |P.D. .... iA.A. , .... 2 P.D. 28o ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS scattered parcels.^ More instructive, however, is a fine of 20 Henry III from Barfreston, in eastern Kent, by which one-half of a carucate, excepting such land as was held in dower by two women, was transferred.'' Several characteristics of this fine are ' " . unam acram et dimidiam in Sweynesam iuxta terrain predict! Rogeri unam acram in Longeham iuxta terrain Ricardi de Cheteneye unam acram in Clakslond iuxta terram predicti Wyberti dimidiam acram inter domum dfcti Rogeri et domum predicti Roberti tres perticatas inter terram predicti Wyberti et Rogeri (Ped. Fin., case .96, no. 33S). 2 Transfer of a messuage and a half-tcarucate, which comprised " unam acram et tres perticatas terre que iacent sub dicto mesuagio versus austrum et unam acram et unam perticatam que iacent inter terram ysaac de Sanwyc et terram Johannis Pent et quatuor acras et unam perticatam terre et dimidiam versus austrum in campo qui vocatur Bestedune et unam acram et quatuordecim sulcos qui iacent in medio campo qui vo- catur Bynorthewde et quattuor acras terre in medio pasture que vocatur northdune et unam acram et unam perticatam et quinque pedes terre in medio pasture que iacet versus Borialem partem de Haggedale et quinque perticatas et sex sulcos terre in campo sub Haggedale versus austrum et duas acras et unam perticatam et septem pedes terre in pastura versus occidentem et quattuor acras et quinque sulcos terre versus austrum in campo qui vo- catur Bisuthewode et tres acras et unam perticatam terre versus austrum in pastura de Litle- dune et tres acras et unam perticatam et dimidiam et duos sulcos terre in campo qui vocatur Bromueld quarum una medietas iacet sub pastura de Lit- ledun et altera medietas in medio campo de Bromfelde et imam acram terre que iacet in medio pasture sub bosco de Berefrestone versus occidentem et tres acras et imam perticatam et dimidiam et quattuor sulcos terre versus aquilonem in campo qui vocatur Langetighe et unam acram et unam perticatam et quattuor sulcos terre in campo qui iacet versus partem orientalem de Langetigh et unam acram et dimidiam perticatam terre versus austrum in campo qui vocatur Steuerlonde et unam acram et sex sulcos terre versus austrum in Suthfeld et duas perticatas et dimidiam et quattuor sulcos terre versus orientem de via que vocatur Drove et unam acram et tres perticatas et tres sulcos terre in medio campo qui iacet iuxta curiam versus austrum THE KENTISH SYSTEM 28 1 noteworthy. The parcels were not large, ranging from one to four acres and averaging about two acres. Their areas are ac- curately estimated even to " sulci " (furrows). They lay for the most part " in campo," " in medio campi," " in medio culture " (once) , " in medio pasture." ^ The sulci occur in connection with campi, an intimation that the latter were arable; and, when in one instance it was necessary to estimate a small piece of pasture, this was done in " pedes." The campi can hardly have been con- terminous with the parcels, else why " in medio campi " ? To remove doubt, the fine shows that the 3I acres " in campo qui vocatur Bromueld " were in two parcels, one of them being " in medio campo de Bromfelde." The parcels of arable, then, lay within larger fields, and, although these are not expressly said to have been unenclosed, they probably were so. The terrier establishes the existence in northern Kent, in the thirteenth century, of holdings constituted in part of small non-adjacent parcels of arable. The descriptive detail of the fine just quoted emphasizes what has already appeared in other terriers and surveys as a Kentish characteristic — the location of the parcels of a holding in a bewildering number of field divisions bearing local names and giv- et quattuor acras et unam perticatam terre in medio campi qui vocatur Osmundesteghe et unam acram et dimidiam perticatam et quinque sulcos terre versus aqui- lonem in campo qui vocatur Reteghe et unam acram et tres perticatas terre in medio pasture de Potynberegh et duas acras terre que iacent versus Potynberegh cum situ imius mo- lendini et unam perticatam et dimidiam et tres sulcos terre in medio cultiure qui vocatur Shortestiche et dimidiam acram et six sulcos terre versus occidentem hortfurlong et dimidiam acram et decem sulcos terre versus orientem in vaUe sub Knolle et unam perticatam terre in crof ta extra portum versus campum qui iacet sub Chimyno qui vocatur Drove et tres acras bosci de Berfreston qui iacet versus aquilonem et quintam bestiam cum bestiis predictarum [two women holding in dotem] in pastura de forestal ante magnam portam curie de Berefreston " (Ped. Fin., case 96, no. 276). ' The parcels " in medio pasture " are puzzling. It may be that old arable campi were at the time used as pastures, or it may be that pastures had been allotted among the tenants and that the latter could utilize their parcels by means 282 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS ing little clue to the husbandry employed. Except that the par- cels were usually small and lay to some extent intermixed with those of other tenants, Kentish arrangements were in contrast with those of the midlands. There was no grouping of parcels into two or three, four or six, fields, with the total areas approximately equal. Nor can it be readily discovered from the surveys thus far noticed whether the parcels of a holding lay to any extent grouped in one part of the unenclosed arable area or whether they were scattered conscientiously throughout it. Most valuable for determining this point is a survey of Gilling- ham, made in 26 Henry VI and preserved at the British Museum in an incomplete nineteenth-century copy.* Gillingham, on the lower Medway near Rochester, has today assumed an industrial character and has lost its early fields. The old survey, however, arranges the tenants' holdings in iuga, and for each of these gives boundaries and area. Since this is almost the only survey which describes iuga by bounding them, a transcription of the first thirteen boundaries is pertinent : — " lugum Foghell incipit ad communem viam ducentem inter Renham et GyUyngham versus South ad terram de Renham et ad salsum Mariscum de GyUyng- ham versus North et ad terram domine Alicie Passhele versus West et continet illud lugum xxiii acras. lugum Cherhnan incipit ad terram heredum Adamari Digges vocatam Wynelyng versus West ad Regiam stratam ducentem inter Gyllingham et Ren- ham versus South ad mariscum vocatum Thomas Innyng versus North et ad communem viam ducentem de Berwescrosse ad Twi- delswelle versus East et continet illud lugum xxiiii acras iii rodas iii day. lugum Fissher incipit ad campum vocatum Bradefeld versus South of Wattles OT other temporary enclosures. The phrase " in medio campo " may possibly be a variant of " in medio campi." ' Add. MS. 33go2. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 283 ad communem stratam vocatam Twidolestrete ducentem ad Twidoleswell versus West ad mariscum salsum versus North et ad metas inter Renham et Gyllingham et terrain heredum Thome Gillingham ... in lugo Foghell versus East. . . . Duo luga Coole incipiunt ad lugum Fisher ex parte boriali de Bradfeld versus North ad metas de Renham versus East ad Regiam Stratam vocatam Twidolestrete versus West et ad venellam vocatam Cokkeslane . . . versus South. . . . Fraunceis f erthyng incipit in venella vocata Cokkeslane versus North ad croftum Ricardi Mauncer et ad metas de Renham ver- sus East ad Twydolestreete versus West et ad lugum Hood versus South. . . . lugum Hood incipit ad Fraunceys ferthyng versus North ad lugum Edweker versus South ad metas de Renham versus East et ad Twidolestrete versus West. . . . lugum Edweker incipit ad terram de Renham versus East ad Twidolstrete versus West ad iugum Hood versus North et ad iugum vocatum Raynold versus South. . . . Iugum Raynold incipit ad metas inter Renham et Gillingham versus East ad Twydolestrete versus West ad iugum Edweker versus North et ad iugum Gilnoth versus South. . . . Iugum Gilnoth incipit ad metas de Renham versus East ad regiam viam ducentem inter Roffam et Cantuariam versus South ad Twydolestrete versus West et ad jugum Raynold versus North. . . . Iugum Gate incipit ad Twidolestrete versus East ad communem Stratam ducentem inter Eastcourt et Ber- wescrosse versus North 284 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS ad communem viam ducentem ad ecclesiam de Gillingham et ad venellam vocatam Snorehelle lane versus South at ad mesuagium deEast court et Scottyssoole versus West, lugum Petri incipit ad communem Stratam vocatam looces- strete versus West ad Twydolestrete versus East ad communem viam ducentem inter Twydolestrete et loocesstrete versus North et ad iugxmi Simstan et ad iugum Alreed versus South. . . . lugvmi Simstan incipit ad loocestrete versus West ad iugum Alreed versus Est ad iugum Petri versus North et extendit ad Watescrof t in lugo Alreed versus South. . . . Iugum Alreed incipit ad iugum Petri versus North ad Twiddolestrete versus Est ad Iugum Stimston versus West ad . . . [blank] . . . versus South. . . . " The iuga here described were clearly rectangular areas. From "iugum Fissher" to "iugum Gilnoth" they formed a series running from north to south, boimded on the east by the parish of Ren- ham and on the west by Twidolestrete. The next four consti- tuted a similar series lying to the west of Twidolestrete. The iugum here and elsewhere in the survey usually contained about 24 acres, although this number might drop to 5 or rise to 132. Sometimes a double iugum occurred, as in the case of " duo iuga Coole," and the fourth part of a iugum might appear as a " ferthing." As to the tenants, the distribution and areas of the parcels of their holdings relative to the first fourteen iuga may be tabulated as shown on the following page. Few as are these fourteen iuga in proportion to the entire number, the preceding tabulation shows in a measure their rela- tion to the holdings of the tenants. The lands of any person or estate tended to lie in neighboring iuga, whether in few or in many. The estate of the heirs of John Beausitz appears in each of the above fourteen, continues through the following eight, dis- appears for a long time, but reappears toward the end of the survey in some half-dozen field divisions, two of these being iuga. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 28s The heirs of Thomas Gillingham fare in much the same way. Richard Bamme, who is not introduced until we reach the tenth iugum, continues to have an interest in upwards of twenty-five iuga and other areas, his total estate being large. John Digon, Name of lugum Foghell Area of lugum^ 23 o o Heredes Thome de Gillyng- 107 ham 234 806 Heredes Johamiis Beausitz 933 John Grenested Alicia Hunte . . . Duo Iuga Fraunceis Cherlman Fissher Coole Ferthyng Hood Edweker 24 33 24 22 58 30 602 24 00 24 05 8382 S20 220 13 o 4 301 Richard Mauncer . Name of lugum Rayold Area of lugum 27 o o Heredes Thome de Gillyngham 231 Gilnoth 26 2 g 16 o o Heredes Johamiis Beausitz 21 o 7 10 2 9 John Grenested Alicia Hunte . . . Richard Mauncer 233 Domina Alicia Passhele . . 300 John Lacy Richard Bamme Johanna Jooce Heredes Johannis Bowes . . John Colman, Sen John York , Nupton Heredes Johannis Naste . . W. MiUe Thomas Langle John Digon Heredes Ademari Diggs . . John Harvey William Zoolay John Ram Heredes Johannis Coleman 14 o I 2 o o t Gate 24 2 23 i o 9J 2 7i 3 4* 2 I4 102^ 5 Q 2j 136 I 82 48 3 7 502 010 I I o2 I 10 2 O \ 7 3 3=* .... Petri Simstan 24 o lis 24 o 34> 60s 300^ 6 o o J I 3 i§ 2 6 136 238 106 X 2 I I 2 3 8*1 o 7 3 2 1*2 3 i 6 22 I 5 19 3 5 I 2 s 130 Alreed Pilgrym 41 3 3' 29 2 33 200 13 X 2^ 2 2 6 I 6 I 8i 300 S 3 o 200 o 73 3 o 424 300 2 o 1 3 I 2 z o I S 133 112 •J 2 3 o o o 9 I o s 100 ; o 6* i I o 6 - (■in 3 8 I o* o 4» ' All areas are in acres, roods, and day's works, a day's work being equivalent to one-fourth of a rood. ^ Includes a messuage. ' The areas assigned to the last five iuga differ slightly from the sums of the areas of the parcels in each. ' A garden. 286 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS at first inconspicuous, comes to have in three neighboring iuga 24 acreS in 24 parcels and a croft of 5 acres. Most of the numer- ous tenants, however, were like John Colman or John York: they had small parcels in two or three or four neighboring iuga, but none elsewhere. It is just possible, of course, that such par- cels were contiguous and formed a compact holding artificially divided among arbitrarily drawn iuga. This, however, is unlikely, and in any case the larger holdings have to be thought of as com- posed of parcels to some extent non-contiguous. The survey thus establishes the fact, hitherto obscure, that the parcels of a Kentish holding were not scattered throughout the expanse of the village arable, as under the midland system, but were to some extent segregated in one locality. They did not, however, en- tirely cohere. The field system of Gillingham may, then, be de- scribed as one of non-contiguous, yet of not widely scattered, parcels. Over it all rested the network of the iuga, for the rectangular appearance of which this survey is our best source. Whether blocks of such a shape, regularly disposed and of uniform size, served or ever had served an agricultural end, is not explained in this abbreviated document. Other Kentish surveys, however, amplify our knowledge, and an extract from one of the best of them is printed in Appendix V. The description of units, tenants, parcels, and rents shows the same completeness which must have characterized the Gilhngham original. Beginning and end are wanting, but the hand is of the early fifteenth century. The townships referred to are Newchurch, Bilsington, and Romney Marsh. Iuga are not mentioned, the units here being " dolae " and " tenementa." The accounts of three dolae (" dola Gode- wini," "dola Storni," "dola de Kyngessnothe ") and of three half-dolae (" dimidia dola Mawgeri," " alia dimidia dola Maw- geri," " dimidia dola de Westbrege ") have been transcribed. Several characteristics already discerned at Gillingham re- appear. The dolae are described as abutting upon or lying on both sides of certain highways, a circumstance which implies that they were compact areas; indeed, a statement is sometimes added to the effect that their acres lay " coniunctim." Their size was THE KENTISH SYSTEM 287 uniform, varjdng only between 40 and 46 acres. Several tenants shared in each, except in " dola de Kyngessnothe," the whole of which was held by the heirs of Jacob de Kyngessnothe. A ten- ant sometimes had parcels in successive dolae or half-dolae. Adam Osbarn had five parcels in one dola, four in another; the heirs of Richard Pundherst had three acres in one, three and one-half in another, and nine in a third — four parcels in all. So far as the incomplete survey permits us to judge, the parcels of a tenant did not he in many widely separated dolae, but in a few adjacent ones. Additional information may be got from the extracts printed in Appendix V. The parcels within each dola are named and their areas given. Names usually differed, except that a few parcels are said to have lain "in Holland"; the areas, too, of the parcels were not such as to suggest open-field strips. Both circumstances point to the absence of imenclosed arable, an inference which is the more probable since the region in ques- tion is in or near Romney Marsh. The system of iuga or dolae was therefore consistent with one of plats, whether arable, marsh, or pasture, and hence with one of enclosures. Yet if the parcels were plats or enclosures, they were none the less, in the New- church survey, often non-adjacent. So, indeed, the Newington plan, which has already been reproduced, shows the plats there to have been. Conditions of the late sixteenth century thus find a parallel some two hundred years earlier. Other peculiarities of the Kentish system we can best discover by noting in cormection with the Newchurch extracts the impli- cations of another survey, perhaps the most satisfactory that we have.i It was made in the early fifteenth century for Thomas Ludlow, abbot of Battle, and refers to the large manor of Wye, situated in the center of the county. Except for its omission of the boundaries and locations of the iuga, it is superior to the GiUingham transcript, and it is more nearly complete and more complex than the Newchurch record. The description, as usual, proceeds by iuga. At Wye these units varied considerably in area, comprising from 37 to 187 ' Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, ff. 108-188. 288 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS acres, the fluctuations being due to the inclusion of greater or smaller quantities of pasture or down-land. The average size of a iugum was from 60 to 70 acres, in contrast with the 24-acre iugum of Gillingham and the 40-acre dola of Newchurch. A description of two of the smaller iuga will be of assistance in drawing general conclusions: — " Dimidium Iugum de foghelchilde Heredes Johanis Dod tenent in campo vocato Wolvenfeld ii acras i rodam dimidiam Agnes Broman tenet in eodem i acram ui rodas et in Strongelonde i acram dimidiam Thomas Elyndenne tenet de iure uxoris sue in Wolvenfelde ii acras dimidiam Heredes Johanis Selke de Broke tenent in Strongelonde iii acras iii rodas. In crofto vocato Jannescroft de Wy i acram terre Heredes Stephani Tur tenent in Strongelond unam acram dimidiam. In Doucerede iii acras et in longecrofte i acram dimidiam Stephanus Dod tenet in Wolvenfeld dimidiam acram dimi- diam rodam Heredes Johanis Selke iunioris tenent in Strongelond ii acras i rodam. In longorcrofte i acram et in mesuagio eorum apud Silkenstrete in capite orientaU dicti mesuagii iii rodas Johanes Petycourt tenet apud Gerardesteghile i acram terre Andrus Martyn tenet in mesuagio suo et in Strongelond i acram iii rodas Heredes Simonis German tanner tenent in Clerkescroft i acram iii rodas Thomas Alayn tenet in Selkenbroke iiii acras dimidiam Thomas Kempe tenet in Melcompesmede iii rodas prati que fuerunt Agnetis Danyel Svunma xxxiii acre i roda dimidia [Rent and services one-half as great as for the following iugum]." THE KENTISH SYSTEM 289 " lugum de Clyt et Forwerde Hamo German tenet in East walewaye ii acras que fuerunt Thome Scot Item i acram ibidem que fuit Johanis Laghame Item in eodem iii acras que fuerunt Thome de Chityn- den de Williehno Barrok Item in eodem i acram dimidiam que fuerunt Simonis de Tongge Item in eodem iii rodas terre que fuerunt predicti Si- monis Item in eodem ii acras que fuerunt Johanis Hortone vocati Cukkow Item in eodem i acram terre . . . que fuit Johanis Westbeche Item in eodem i acram terre . . . que fuit Thome German bocher Item in eodem v acras i rodam terre iacentes in longi- tudine ad predictam acram terre predicti Johanis Westbeche Item in eodem i acram dimidiam que fuerunt Steph- ani Tur Summa xix acre Heredes Williehni Mellere tenent in East waleweye sub le lynche i acram dimidiam Heredes Stephani Tur tenent in Gretefeld i acram dimi- diam Johanes Peticourt tenet in Eastbrettegh ii acras. Et in foldenge i acram i rodam Heredes Roberti Man tenent in Eastbrettegh iiii acras Thomas Baldewyne tenet in Westgretefeld ii acras dimi- diam Heredes Johanis Selke tenent in Eastbretteghe i acram dimidiam. In Gretefelde ii acras. In Westgrettfelde dimidiam acram terre Gilbertus Baldewyne tenet in Eastbrettegh i acram dimi- diam tierre Summa xxxvii acre i roda 290 EjmLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Unde de redditu per annum cum viii d. ob. pro tenemento Gil- bert! Forderede ix s. vi d. [at six terms] ... ad Nativitatem domini i gallum ii gallinas Et [ad] Pascham xx ova. Et tenentes predict! debent pro predicto iugo omnes consuetudines et servicia sicut Johannes de Garde debet de proprio iugo suo de Cokeles- coumbe predicto." ^ The concluding phrases, such as are confessedly omitted in the GiUingham copy but occur in connection with each dola at Newchurch, disclose the financial aspect of the iugum. Vary as they might in area, the Wye iuga were alike in the obligations which rested upon them. Rents of assize and services were the same for all. The former were set at 8 5. gj d. the iugum, with one-half as much for the half-iugum and one-fourth as much for the virgata. The services were not burdensome, comprising little more than the ploughing, sowing, mowing, and reaping of two or three acres yearly by each iugum.^ At Newchurch the value of the rent of assize and of the services due from each dola was eighteen shillings. These heavier obhgations imposed upon units which were usually smaller than those at Wye may have been due to a better quahty of soil. At any rate, it can no longer be doubted that at the beginning of the fifteenth century the iuga and dolae were primarily financial, not agricultural, units. Whereas several tenants shared in each of them and few tenants were limited to any one of them, they did have financial unity and stability. Their midland correspondents were not the furlongs, as the boundaries at GiUingham might suggest, but rather the virgates or yard-lands upon which, as units, rents and services were always imposed in the midlands. Differ as they might in the distribution of their constituent parcels, Kentish iuga and midland virgates were alike to the rent-collector. 1 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, ff. 116, 114&. ' " Et debet arare ad frumentum i acram et ditoidiam acram terre domini cum facto proprio, petere semen ad granariam in manerio domini de Wy, seminare et herciare predictam acram et dimidiam Et debet arare, seminare semine domini ut supra, et herciare i acram et dimidiam acram terre domini ad sementem ordei et petere semen ut supra. Et debet falcare, spargere, vertere, cumulare, cariare in manerium domini et ad tassum furcare unam acram prati de prato domini. Et debet metere, ligare, et coppare in autumpno unam acram et dimidiam acram de THE KENTISH SYSTEM 29 1 Unfortunately, as was noticed above, the iuga of Wye are not bounded in the survey. To discover whether they were compact areas, as were those at Gillingham and Newchurch, we have to attend to the field-names used, and even then we can draw conclu- sions only when the names are not too diverse. In the " iugum de Clyt et Forwerde " more than one-half of the parcels and of the area lay in East Walewaye; the remainder was pretty well accounted for by East Brettegh, Gretefeld, and West Gretefeld. Although no statement records that these four areas were contig- uous, it is probable that they formed a block not unlike a iugum at Gillingham. Sometimes the place-names within a iugum at Wye were numerous, certain of them referring to parcels or crofts which fell to individual tenants.^ But this circumstance need not conflict with the conception of the iugum as a compact area; it merely implies that such an area was divided into many parts. As at Gillingham and Newchurch, the tenants of each iugum at Wye were likely to be several in number; the first iugum only was in the hands of a single proprietor. Furthermore, as in the other surveys, a tenant usually had parcels in two or three consecutive iuga; but in its greater concentration of the parcels of a holding Wye resembled Newchurch rather than Gillingham. Typical was the holding of John Baldewyne, whose parcels were situated in three iuga as follows: — In the half-iugum Mastall, in Weyberghe 2 acres, li roods in Tommestowne 3 roods, 8 day's-works in le Berghe 2 acres, i| roods; In the one and one-half iuga Chilcheborne, in Chilchebournesfelde § acre, i day's-work in piriteghe 2§ acres in Watertoune et in parvo gardino ij rood; frumento domini. Et debit xvii averagia et tertiam partem unius averagii per annum. Et debet inde de relevio cum accident xl d. Et debet sectam per annum " (ibid., f. 1096). • Ten place-names, as we have seen, were connected with the half-iugum o£ Foghelchilde. Four tenants shared in Wolvenfeld and four in Strangelonde, but the eight remaining areas, four of which were crofts, fell to individual tenants. 292 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS In the half-iugum Ammyng [specification is only by quality of land], olim Thome Chiterenden, terra optimi precii, i acre, 3 roods; terra medii precii, i rood que fuerunt Simmonis de Tonge, terra optimi precii, 35 acres; terra medii precii, i acre; pastura, 25! acres quondam Gilberti Mogge, terra optimi precii, 3 roods; terra medii precii, | acre; pastura, i| acres que fuerunt Stephani Mogge, terra optimi precii, J acre; terra medii precii, 2 acre; pastura, af acres que fuerunt heredum Johanis Mogge et Hamonis Mogge, terra optimi precii, 15 acres; terra medii precii, i acre; pastura, 45 acres. The " former tenants " here mentioned should be compared with those who appear in the first part of the description of " iugum de Clyt et Forwerde." ' One-half of this iugum had come into the hands of Hamo German, his ten parcels having formerly been held by nine tenants, only one of whom bore the name of German. Since the names of the former tenants are clearly remembered, the accumulation seems to have come about somewhat recently. From phenomena like this we discover that the situation pictured in the survey was not one of long standing, and perceive that a iugum might come to be transformed from an area shared by many tenants into one held by two or three. Enclosure would readily attend upon consolidation, and by the sixteenth or seventeenth century a county largely enclosed would be a natural result. If tendencies toward consolidation are discernible in the " iugum de Clyt et Forwerde," none the less were there tenden- cies in the opposite direction. Four of the eight tenants were not individuals but groups, and the group in each case consisted of the heirs of a former tenant. Even if this man's parcel had been not larger than an acre and a half, it passed to his heirs jointly. In the half-iugum Foghelchilde five of the twelve tenants were groups of heirs. Since the situation was not different with the other iuga at Wye, the actual tenants there must have been ' C£. above, p. 289. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 293 far more numerous than are the entries of the survey. At GiUingham and Newchurch, too, the heirs of a defunct tenant frequently appear as his successor. In the half-dola of West- brege the only tenants were three such groups. The custom of transmitting a holding to all the heirs of a tenant rather than to one of them is of course the distinguishing feature of the Kentish tenure known as gavelkind. This usage was in marked contrast with that of the midlands, where the virgate or fractional virgate of a customary tenant passed intact to a single heir or to a new tenant. The antiquity of this Kentish custom, so unusual and so frequently perceptible in the fifteenth century surveys, now deserves consideration. In tracing the earlier history of the iugum much depends upon nomenclature. One of our most valuable documents at this point, since it admits of comparison with the fifteenth-century survey, is a Wye rental of 5 Edward II, which records the tenants of all iuga and the rents accruing from them.* On examination we discover that the names of the iuga are practically the same as in the survey of 150 years later, and that the surnames of tenants are frequently unchanged. In the half-iugum Coklescumbe the heirs of John Hughelyn are tenants in the earlier rental, Simon Hoghelyn and Johanna Hoghelyn in the later survey. While surnames often thus persist in the same iugum, there is also a tendency for them to shift from one iugum to another. In the rental, " Gilbertus Dod et Simon Dod tenent iugum de East- chilton pro Willehno de Chiltone "; in the survey, tenants by the name of Dod are found in half-iugum Coklescumbe, in iugum Waleweye, and in half-iugum Foghelchilde. A peculiar difference between rental and survey lies in the fact that in the former the tenants, whether few or several, hold " for " {pro) one or more persons. The two Dods held " for " WiUiam de Chiltone. The one-and-one-half iugum Chelcheborne is held " pro " Hugo Mogge and " Walter de Chelcheborne et socii " by Richard de Coumbe, Richard de Broke, Stephen Re- naud, the heirs of William de Chilcheborne, Gilbert de Chilche- borne, Stephen Baldewyne, William Mogge, Richard Mogge, ' Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 57, ff. 95-105. 294 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Adam Mogge, and Robert " filius Alain Mogge." This is an elab- orate process of sub-letting, both tenants and sub-tenants being many. In the fifteenth-century survey only one group of ten- ants, presumably the old sub-tenant group, is referred to. The significant feature of the rental, however, is the similarity between the names of the iuga and the names of the tenants (not sub-tenants). The tenant of the iugum East Chilton is William de Chiltone. Similarly, " Hamo pistor tenet iugum de Wyther- stone pro Gilberto de Wytherstone," and " Thomas de Brones- ford tenet iugum quod vocatur Aula de Bronesford." The one-and-one-half iugum Cukelescumbe is held by several sub- tenants for a group composed of Walter de Cukelescumbe, the heirs of Hugo de Cukelescumbe, and the heirs of "Radulfus molendinarius et socii." Thus, so far as names are concerned, the tenants of the iuga stand at times in intimate relations with the iuga themselves. With the sub-tenants' names, naturally, such is not the case. In the later Wye survey, too, where we are dealing only with actual holders, who correspond to the former sub-tenants, Httle similarity between surnames and the names of iuga is to be expected; and, indeed, the matter of nomenclature is there of little importance. The identity between surnames of immediate tenants and names of iuga in the rental of Edward II has noteworthy impli- cations. It might seem that the tenant at times got his name from the iugum rather than the iugum from the tenant. Hugo de Cukelescumbe, Walter de Chilcheborne, Gilbert de Wither- stone, William de Chiltone, are tenants of the iuga whose names they bear. Yet even in these instances it is probable that the personal name was originally derived from some place-name older than that of a iugum at Wye. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that several of the names of the Wye iuga were derived from personal names, and in one instance we can see this happening. Two sub-tenants confer their names upon the iuga which they hold. In the rental Gilbert Dod and Simon Dod held the iugum of East Chilton for WilKam de Chiltone; in the survey this iugum appears as one of the " duo iuga de Doddes que vocantur Gerold et East Chilton." Other iuga in both rental THE KENTISH SYSTEM 295 and survey are obviously designated by personal names. Such are " iugum Willelmi de lewte et Stephani de Chiltone," " dimi- dium iugum Orgari pistoris," " iugum [Stephani] Bard et Neel," " dimidium iugum de Bisshop," " diniidium\ iugum de Knottes et Someres." In the Newchurch survey the dolae bore the names of Godewin, Mawger, and Storn. Since iuga\and dolae therefore sometimes came to bear personal names, we may at once inquire what this implies. \ If a person gives his name to a certain arek^ of land or even derives his name from it, that land is presumably his own in some more or less intimate sense. The dola named from Godwin and the iugum named from Stephen Bard must at one time have been in their occupation or ownership. A clue to the interpreta- tion of the Wye evidence from this point of view is to be had in a still earlier Wye rental, one from the days of Edward I.^ Although it is merely an enumeration of payments and of the persons responsible for them, the naniies of the latter, we discover, are names later borne by the iuga.^ Most significant is the frequency with which the persons answerable for rents appear as groups of heirs. Where documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centu- ries speak of " iugum de Clyt et Forwerde," the rental states that the "heredes Cliteres" and the " heredes Forwerd" pay 7I J. Where in the later records we have been wont to hear of the half- iugum Foghelchilde, we learn from the early rental that the " heredes Foghel " pay 3! d. In short, the rental transports us to a time when most of the iuga were, to be sure, not in the hands of their eponymous tenants, but in the hands of the heirs of such tenants. It is a period antecedent to the two stages pictured by the later rental and the still later survey. Back of it is yet ah earlier period, the existence of which seems guaranteed by the use of the term " heirs "; for, if the heirs of a tenant hold a parcel of land, the tenant in question must once have held it either for himself or as representative of his family group. » S. R. Scargill-Bird, Custumals of Battle Abbey (Camden Soc, 1887), pp. loi- 136. 2 In a half-dozen instances, iuga, not persons, are named as responsible for the payments. 296 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Four stages in the history of the iuga at Wye thus emerge. At a date still undetermined each iugimi or half-iugum was attributable to a single tenant, who either gave it his name or, if it already bore a topographical designation, possibly took his name from it. By the end of the thirteenth century it had passed to his heirs, who held it as a group of co-tenants. In the first half of the next century these heirs were distinguished from another group of tenants who held for {pro) them, but whose members had to only a slight extent the same surnames as the group of heirs. By the fifteenth century one group of tenants alone re- mained, and their names have scarcely any connection with the names once traditional in the iugum. To how small a degree the interests of these last tenants were boimd up with the iugum is shown by their acquisition of parcels in other iuga as well. The history of the iugum was therefore one of continuous subdivision and reapportionment, largely due to the practice of transmitting landed property to groups of heirs, who in turn at times sub- let it. The effect of such a history upon the appearance of the iugum can be conjectured. Division among co-heirs probably involved giving to each his share of the several qualities of land within the iugirai. In the fifteenth century the half-iugum Ammyng gave no names to its parcels, but grouped them as " terra optimii precii, terra medii precii, et pastura." ^ Since allotments of different quality must frequently have been non-contiguous, the tenants of a subdivided iugum would find their holdings consist- ing of scattered parcels. But neither in this condition nor as a compact block before subdivision can the iugum have been fitted into the framework of the midland system. Had the arable of the township been divided into two or three large fields, the iugum as a compact area would in a particular year have been either entirely fallow or entirely sown. That fifteenth- or even thirteenth-century Kentish holdings consisted of scattered parcels does not, therefore, imply midland husbandry. One must re- member, too, that the parcels of the iugum might be meadow or pasture as well as arable, they might be open or enclosed. Only ' Cf. p. 292, above. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 297 one approach to the aspect of the midland system do Kentish postulates allow. If in the case of the arable co-heirs or co- tenants at times devised some system of cooperative ploughing, there may have arisen within a iugum something resembUng a midland furlong. But such a furlong did not combine with other similar ones to form two or three large fields. With the key to Kentish field arrangements above given, the interpretation of early charters becomes simple. The scattering of parcels is explicable; it was, indeed, normal. The multiplicity of names arises from a reference not only to the field divisions of one iugum, but in all probabiUty to those of two or three iuga. The varying areas of the parcels are appropriate to Kent as they would not be to the midlands, and the small size of most of them was a natural outcome of more or less frequent subdivision. Parcels might or might not assume the appearance of arable strips, according to the tenants' attitude toward cooperative ploughing. Apparently they did practice this on the down-lands of the southeast. In general, then, a fourteenth- or fifteenth- century map would show the parcels of a holding as a network of non-contiguous plats or strips often considerably segregated in one part of the township's area. In its primary methods and results the Kentish system was not unlike the Scottish or the Irish; transmission to co-heirs or co-tenants wrought similar effects in each case. The difference lay in the original units. In the Celtic countries it was the entire township which was first subjected to subdivision; in Kent, it was the smaller iugum or dola. No conjecture has yet been hazarded as to when the iugum or dola was in the hands of the tenant with whose name it came to be connected. Since iuga are Domesday units, they must have antedated the Conquest. Yet most of the names which they bear are later. At GilHngham the personal names Fissher, Hood, Pilgrym, have no flavor of antiquity. At Wye, in the earliest rental, many of the list seem to be from Norman England. Such are Gilbertus de Wythereston, Willielmus de Pirye, Roger et JuUana de Rengesdon, Radulphus molendinarius, Richardus Besant, and many others. A few names, however, suggest 298 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Saxon or Danish connections, and these are significant. There was a "iugum Wlstani" and a "iugum Orgari"; at Newchurch the dolae bore the names of Godewin, Mawger, and Storn. Apparently iuga and dolae had once been in the hands of Saxons or Danes but had been largely appropriated by victorious Nor- mans, who thereupon afl5xed to them Norman names and trans- mitted them by tenure of gavelkind. What we should like to discover is whether, before the Conquest, the units had been thus transmitted and whether therefore there had been several tenants of a iugum or dola. To judge from nomenclature alone, one might assume that there had not, that Wlstan, Orgar, Storn each held an undivided tenement. But we know too little about the transmission of socage holdings in pre-Norman days to maintain that one son inherited to the exclusion of his brothers.^ The individual Saxon name attached to each iugum or dola may have beeii that of the head of a family group and the group may have held the tenement collectively without formally dividing it — a parcel of folk-land. We must thus be content with consigning the Kentish iugum, as a compact rectangular area of from 25 to 60 acres, into the hands of a single Saxon or of a Saxon family, by whom it was cultivated without thought of any two- or three- field system. In order that the system may the better be traced outside the borders of the county, a word should be added regarding other Kentish units of land-holding. In the first place, the iugum had its subdivisions, the fourth part having already made its appearance at Gillingham under the name of " ferthing." At Wye the same fraction was called a virgate, and a " virgatam Throfte, vocatam Throfteyerde, continentem l acras " was bounded as one block. Farther on we learn that it paid only one-fourth of the usual relief, " sicut de quarta parte unius iugi." ^ At Sceldwike there is mention of a " dimidia virgata terre " from which 5f acres are granted away, and at Selling there was an agreement " de tribus iugis terre et una virgata." ' At Eltham ' Cf. below, p. 304, n. I. 2 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, £. 136. ' Archaeologia Cantiana, i. 262 (Ped. Fin., 10 Rich. I), iv. 308 (8 John). THE KENTISH SYSTEM 299 virgates entirely superseded iuga as rent-paying units, the villein tenements amounting to 28f virgates of 7I acres each.i This connotation of the term virgata, a word often found in descriptions of Kentish land, is, however, unusual. Elsewhere in Kentish documents virgata meant a rood, or the fourth part of an acre. Three virgatae, for instance, equalled " una dimidia acra . . . et una virgata," ^ and seven virgatae equalled " una acra et tres virgatae." ' Such is nearly always the significance of the term in charters and surveys.* In some places the larger " sulung " persisted as the rent- pajdng unit, without any reference to iuga. So late as 30 Henry VI the arrangement in Thanet was that 50 tenants held Mer- gate " swyllung" of 210 acres, while 13, 10, 20, and 15 tenants held respectively the other sulungs of Savlyng, Westgate, Syan- kesdon, and Hertesdowne.* All sulungs contained 210 acres except the last, which comprised only 146. At Estrey details are given about the four " sullinga " and the services due from each in a roll written in a hand of the thirteenth century and said to be " de novo compositus sed ab antiquo rotulo abstractus." ^ Of these sulungs, each containing about 200 acres, the first is described as follows: " In suUunga de Ruberghe sunt ccv acre unde Willielmus de Ruberghe tenet xlv acras et Willielmus luvenis et socii sui be acras et Ricardus cyece et socii sui Ix acras et Stephanus filius Normanni et socii sui xl acras." From this it seems likely that the sulung consisted of contiguous blocks of land, and it is clear that one man was often put at the head of his " socii " as responsible for some 60 acres. Other Christ- church manors at the end of the thirteenth century were assessed by sulungs. In the manor of Ickham we find four of them.' Again, "apud Monkton sunt xvii swolung de Gavilykind," each ^ Archaeologia Cantiana, iv. 311 (Inq. p. Mort., 47 Hen. HI). ' Rawl. MS., B 335, f. 54, 9 Edw. II. ' Cott. MS., Claud. D X, f. 123. * E. g., Ped. Fin., case 95, no. 133, 11 Hen. HI: " De dimidia acra terre et una virgata et dimidia.'' ' MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Reg. St. Augus- tine's E xix. f. 1826. " Ibid., Roll E, 1840. ' Ibid., Lib. J, f. 106. 300 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS rendering yearly 20 5. " de mala " and i^ d. the acre " de gablo." ^ At Adisham there was a tendency to use the term generally — to speak, for example, of 36 acres " de Swylenglonde " in Pedding (a field name) held by six tenants.^ Certain manors of St. Augustine's were in the thirteenth century divided into sulungs. At Chislet, " Hec sunt consuetudines . . . scil. de quinque su- linges et dimidia "; and a Littlebourn rental begins, " Apud Sircham habetur dimidia sullung de c acris et debet de qualibet acra i d. de gablo." ' Alongside these definite units, the sulung, the dola, the iugum, and the quarter-iugum called virgata or ferthing, there is one less definite, the " tenementum." It appears in the Wye survey. Following the list of iuga are many tenementa, each containing from 60 to 70 acres, each paying a considerable rent (e. g., 155. 9 d. from 7of acres) and doing ploughing, reaping, and mowing services much as did the iuga. Iuga and virgatae sometimes appear among them, and hke the iuga they comprised parcels held by different men. It seems natural to infer that this second part of the rental describes lands improved or assessed more re- cently than were the old iuga, and at a time when there was a tendency to abandon the ancient term for a new one. This conjecture is strengthened by a fourteenth-century custumal of Eastry,^ which is detailed enough in its field names to admit of comparison with the earlier one of the thirteenth century. ' In the later roll the term sulung, the basis of assessment in the first, does not appear, and the same lands are grouped imder new and smaller units called tenementa, for each of which there are many tenants. In Eastry the sulung seems to have broken directly into tenementa without reference to iuga; in Wye the tenements took their places beside the iuga. One other unit, more distinctively Kentish, should be noticed. This is the "day's work," often abbreviated to "day" or "dai." In the survey of Wye nearly all parcels are given in acres, roods, ' MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Reg. St. Augus- tine's E xix. f. 16. 2 Ibid., f. 216. ' Cott. MS., Faust. A I, ff. 56, 120. * MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Roll E, 188. ' Cf. above, p. 299. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 301 and days. The days seldom exceed ten, and a comparison of items leads to the conclusion that ten day's-works constituted one rood. The smallest Kentish unit of superficial land measure was thus not the pole or perch, but the equivalent of four poles. Of the five units above described three were certainly not widespread in England, at least under these names. The sulung, the iugum, and the day's-work are not often mentioned outside of Kent, and hence may without great inaccuracy be called Kentish. The appearance of any of these names elsewhere will suggest the Kentish system.' The terms tenement and virgate are of course common, but the connotation which they had in Kent is, for the virgate at least, distinctive. In default of accessible documents, the methods of tillage em- ployed by manorial tenants in the open fields of mediaeval Kent are not easy to ascertain. There is, however, no reason to think that the demesne may not at times have lain inter- mixed with the tenants' land,'' as it often did in the midlands. If such were the case, the record which we have concerning the tillage of demesne lands may to some extent be representative of methods of tillage in general. In any event, it will disclose the fact that in fourteenth-century Kent certain arable lands were tilled more continuously and with better results than were similar lands in most other parts of England. Evidence regarding the tillage of the demesne can be drawn, as heretofore, from the extents contained in the inquisitions post mortem, especially in those of the late thirteenth and early four- teenth centuries.' These documents make it clear that in the midlands the average annual value of an acre of arable which was left fallow every second or third year was from ^d.to6d., with an occasional drop to 3 d. and a rise to 8 d. In Kent the percentage of the arable left fallow and the annual value of an acre did not at times greatly differ from this. At Hothfield, in 1 2 Edward III, 80 acres from a total of 200 were untilled, and 6 d. is stated to have been the average annual value of an acre.* Elsewhere, while 1 This is less true of day's work (cf. p. 228, n. 2). 2 C£. above, p. 275. ' Cf. above, p. 46. * C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 56 (i), 17 July, 12 Edw. Ill, Hothfeld: " Sunt ibidem cc acre terre arabilis que valent per annum c s. praetium acre vi d. De 302 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the area sown was about two-thirds of the total, the part left fallow had a distinct value as pasture, presumably because it was enclosed. At Throwley, for example, the no acres that were sown from a total of i6o were each valued at 6 d., but the re- mainder bore pasturage worth 2 d. the acre.* Similarly, at Brabourn the demesne arable when sown was worth 6 d., but when unsown the pasturage of each acre was worth 3 d. from Easter to All Saints.2 Most interesting and most significant, however, are the some- what numerous Kentish manors on which in the middle of the fourteenth century all the acres of the demesne were sown yearly, — " possunt seminari quolibet anno." They were so sown on nearly all the manors of Giles de Badlesmere in 12 Ed- ward III. Under these conditions the value of an acre often became 12 dfi Occasionally it did not rise above 6 J. or 8 J., but this was in the down-country of the east.* Such annual tillage of the entire demesne, with the resultant high valuation per acre, is a circumstance very unusual for the fourteenth century. It was seldom to be met with outside of Kent, but was there a normal concomitant of the flexible field system which the surveys of the county have shown us. lii a region in which it was generally known that much land could be sown yearly, and in which there quibus seminabantur hoc anno cxx acre ante mortem dicti Egidii at residuum iacet ad warectam." ' C. Inq. p. Mort., F. 65 (11), 21 May, 15 Edw. Ill, Throwley: " Sunt ibidem clx acre terre arabilis que valent per annum quando seminantur iiii li. pretium acre vi d. at quando non seminantur pastura cuiuslibet acre valat ii d. De quibus seminabantur ante mortem predict! Williehni de semine yemali et quadragesimali ex acre." ^ Ibid., F. 45 (24), II Edw. Ill, Brabourn: "Sunt ibidem cccxlii acre terre arabilis in dominico que valent . . quum seminantur pretium acre vi d. Et quum non seminantur pastura cuiusUbet acre valet a festo Pasche usque festum Omnium Sanctorum iii d. Et a predicto festo Omnium Sanctorum usque festum Pasche pastura earundem nihil valet quia nihil vendi potest." ' Ibid., F. 56 (i), 3 July, 12 Edw. Ill, Badlesmere: " Sunt ibidem ccc acre terre arrabilis que valent per annum xv li. pretium acre xii d. et possunt quolibet anno seminari et seminabantur hoc anno ante mortem predicti Egidii." So too, with diflference of areas, was it at Chatham, Kingston, Tong, Sibton, Wilderton. At Erith there were 243 acres of " terra arabilis in marisco " worth 3 s. the acre, and 68 other acres of arable worth 20 d. the acre. ' E. g., at Chilham 8 d., at Ringwold 6 d., at Whitstable 6 d. (ibid.). TEE KENTISH SYSTEM 303 was no system of two or three open fields, agriculture appears to have advanced more rapidly than elsewhere in England. We are at length in a position to summarize the characteristics of the Kentish field system. In part they are negative. The arable fields of a township were not divided into two or three large areas in each of which all virgate or bovate holders had strips and one of which was usually left fallow. On the contrary, all the improved land of the township was marked off into more or less rectangular areas called iuga, dolae, or tenementa, all serving as units for the assessment of rents and services. If an actual fifteenth-century holding be considered, it appears that the constituent parcels did not lie consolidated within any iugum. Instead, they were likely to be scattered throughout several iuga, but through those which lay mainly in one section of the township. This situation seems not to have been the original one, but to have arisen from the subdivision of a once compact holding among co-heirs or co-lessees. The acquisition by many of these new tenants of parcels in other iuga gave rise to the dis- creteness which the fifteenth century knew. The parcels at that time were arable, meadow, or pasture; and so far as they were arable and were ploughed by a large cooperative plough they may well have been strips like those of the midlands. On the downs in the southeastern part of the county such have been discerned. The rotation of crops was variable, sometimes resembling that of the midlands, but frequently tending toward an unbroken succession. The absence of a three-course rotation, and espe- cially of a large compact fallow field, made easily possible the reconsohdation of scattered parcels as soon as the tide turned in that direction. It apparently did so turn from the fifteenth century, and hence Kent early became characterized by the con- solidation and enclosure of its farms.' Toward this enclosure the flexible field system contributed in no negligible degree. How ancient was the custom of subdividing holdings among heirs is not altogether clear. It was observed at Wye in the time 1 The persistence of a heavy four-horse plough did not prevent enclosure, since Boys in his report to the Board of Agriculture notes both phenomena {General View of the Agriculture of the County of Kent, pp. 21, 41, 44, 70). 304 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS of Edward I, when the heirs appear in most cases as descendants of Normans. Yet a few iuga there derived their names from Anglo-Saxons or Danes — an indication that in some sense the iuga were before the Conquest connected with individuals. Whether the Anglo-Saxon tenant held for himself or for his family group must be left undetermined. If the latter relation- ship was the existent one, the custom of gavelkind is carried back to pre-Conquest days.' However this be, the Kentish system, in the subdivision and reconsolidation of its holdings, was not unlike the Celtic. It was in the size and shape of their respective units that the two systems differed. The iugum of the one was rectangular and relatively small, the townland of the other irreg- ular in shape and larger. An explanation of these facts and of the origin of the Kentish system will be hazarded in a concluding summary and synthesis. ' Maitland remarks that there is no reason for assigning the body of Kentish custom characterized by tenure of gavelkind to a period earlier than the Conquest. Elsewhere he notes that the Kentish villani of Domesday Book seem not particu- larly distinguished from those of other counties among whom a system of impartible successions may at that time have prevailed. (Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2d ed., Cambridge, 1898, i. 187; ii. 272, 263). CHAPTER VIII The East Anglian System Eighteenth-century survivals of open field in East Anglia offer suggestions about the character of the field system that once prevailed there, and this information is considerably amplified by sixteenth-century surveys. With the key thus secured earlier and less detailed data can be interpreted. Enclosure awards from Norfolk drawn up after 1750 show little surviving open arable field, and those from Suffolk almost none. The plan and appendix prepared by Slater to illustrate parlia- mentary enclosures in the northern county convey a wrong im- pression.i Reljdng as he did upon the acts which authorized the awards, he failed to perceive a peculiarity of Norfolk procedure. For it came to be customary in the county, even when there was but little open arable field within a township, to ask for a nominal re-allotment of the entire township in order to obviate any per- sisting common rights and to establish authoritative titles to ownership. This procedure comes to light through a comparison of certain enclosure awards with nearly contemporary maps and surveys of the same townships made by W. J. Dugmore in 1778.^ Relative to Weasenham All Saints, Weasenham St. Peter, and WeUingham, the enclosure award of 1809 declares that " all lands and grounds in the said several parishes ... do con- tain by measure 4406 acres," and this amount is forthwith allotted. One might conclude that all or much of the area in question was open field, were it not that the earlier Dugmore map reveals at Weasenham only 421 acres of open arable field (in 337 parcels) and at Wellingham only about 50 acres. The Sparham and Bil- ' English Peasantry, pp. 197, 215, 290. He remarks that after 1793 the acts fail to make mention of areas. * The Dugmore maps, which were drawn for Thomas W. Coke, Esq., are among the Holkham MSS., and the awards referred to are either in the same collection or at the Shire Hall in Norwich. 306 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS lingford enclosure award of 1809 allots almost all of the 3533 acres which constitute the two townships, but the Dugmore map shows that not more than one-sixth of this area was in open field.' Although the entire parish of Longham containing 1286 acres was the subject of the enclosure award of 1814, the map of 1778 shows it already enclosed except for some twenty-one strips of open field which contained less than 50 acres. Finally, the Warham award of 1813, which announces that the entire parish of 2303 acres is to be divided and allotted, should be interpreted in connection with a map of 1712, in which one-half of the parish is seen to be already enclosed.'' Because of this aspect of parlia- mentary enclosure in Norfolk, any inference as to the amount of arable open field existent there after 1750, so far as it is based upon parliamentary petitions and acts, is untrustworthy. Nor, indeed, is it possible to get from the awards themselves very accurate information on this subject. The plans, which alone are useful, are so intent upon the new allotments as only occasionally to indicate by fine Knes what the old arrangements were. In a general way, however, the existing enclosures left unchanged in an award can usually be distinguished by their irregular, more or less quadrilateral shape. To judge from them, it appears that at times hardly any open-field strips remained, the award evidently having been made in order to abolish certain rights of common which might still be claimed over enclosed land.' The phraseology of other awards makes it difl&cult, if not im- possible, to determine how much of the area actually affected by them was waste and how much was arable.* Under these cir- ^ About 125 acres in Sparham and from 400 to 500 acres in Billingf ord. 2 The Warham map of 171 2 is at Holkham Hall. ' Among such awards are those relating to Great Walsingham, Little Walsing- ham, and Houghton (1812), Mileham and Beeston (1814), Gresham and Sustead (1828), all at the Shire Hall, Norwich. A similar award relative to Winforton, Herefordshire, has been noted above, p. 140. * The preamble of the Wootton award of 1813 declares that it is concerned with 394 acres of " open and common fields, fens, commons and waste lands." Each allotment, however, refers more accurately to " commons, fens, and waste lands," while the plan shows that the area in question was unimproved land on the out- skirts of an enclosed township. The Wymondham award of 1810 notes that the " lands and grounds directed to be divided, allotted, and inclosed contain 2285 THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 307 cumstances an examination of all the available awards and plans, such as has been made for Oxfordshire and Herefordshire and such as here too would be the only safe basis for a generalization, promises an unsatisfactory return for a great expenditure of labor. If undertaken, it would, we may safely surmise, show few townships with so much as one-third of their improved area still in open field, and in most townships the fraction would be less than one-tenth.' William Marshall's description, written in 1787, supports this view. It runs as follows: " Some remnants of common fields still remain; but in general they are not larger than well-sized inclosures. Upon the whole. East Norfolk at large may be said to be a very old-inclosed coimtry. . . . [The] few common fields [left] . . . are in general very small; ten, twenty or thirty acres; cut into patches and shreds of two or three acres, down to half an acre, or, perhaps, a rood each. . . . Towards the north coast some pretty extensive common-fields remain open; and some few in the southern Hundreds." ^ If it be true that Norfolk arable fields were very largely en- closed without the aid of parliamentary act, the period at which the process took place most rapidly becomes a matter of interest. The subject cannot here be adequately discussed, but the testi- mony of one or two groups of documents may be noted. Sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century surveys, of which there are several from this county, concur in representing the acres." A schedule denominates 1934 acres as " Total com. Allots." and 351 acres as " Total Field Allots." Only from the excellent map do we discover that the 1934 acres were the old enclosures, and that the 351 acres were parcels on the outskirts of the township looking very much like waste land. Both these awards are at the Shire Hall,. Norwich. 1 The conmion field at Fellbrigg before its enclosure in 1771 was, according to the reporter to the Board of Agriculture, unusually extensive. He remarks that the township had remained time out of mind in the following state : 400 acres inclosed, 400 common field, 100 woodland, 400 comxnon heath (Nathaniel Kent, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Norfolk, London, 1794, p. 23). Relatively large was the expanse of open arable field at Ormesby, where in 1845 it amounted to 700 acres, in contrast with 1464 acres of old enclosures and 521 acres of roads and commons. At Weasenham and Wellingham about 500 acres were in i8og un- enclosed in townships comprising an area of 4406 acres. 2 The Rural Economy of Norfolk, comprising the Management of Landed Estates and the Present Practice of Husbandry in that County (London, 1787), i. 4, 8. 308 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS open fields as still mainly intact.* Considerable enclosing there- fore took place at some time between 1600 and 1750. How much of it occurred before 17 14 may be in part discerned from a summary of the plans of nineteen estates lying in a somewhat larger number of townships in the central and eastern part of the county and belonging to St. Helen's, the Boys', and other hospitals in Norwich.^ It will be seen that about eighty per cent of the total area of these estates was enclosed when the plans were made; but whether most closes had arisen through encroachments upon the open fields may be doubted, since in nine estates all or a part of them bordered upon the respective common wastes. In those estates, however, in which enclosures from the waste play a smaller part, the open and enclosed areas nearly balance each other. In the Trowse and Bixley property of 58 acres the area of the scattered enclosed plats was 34 acres, that of the open-field strips 24 acres; in the Buxton estate there were 20 acres enclosed, 18 open; at Shropham, the open-field strips seem to have contained about the same number of acres as the scattered closes, neglecting enclosures from the common; at Snitterton unenclosed strips predominated. In general, then, it is possible that not more than one-half of the open arable fields in the region round Norwich had been enclosed before 17 14. The method followed in bringing about enclosure before this date was the piecemeal one described by Nathaniel Kent at the end of the eighteenth century and still employed at that time.' 1 Certain of these surveys are referred to below (p. 313 sq.) in the discussion of field arrangements. Corbett, describing the open fields of six Norfolk villages, infers that in four instances enclosure had affected not more than one-half of the arable and in the two others much less than this (" Elizabethan Village Surveys," p. 87). ' Cf. p. 309. These plans, which are among the Norwich records kept in the castle, were made known to me through the kindness of J. S. Tingey, Esq. ' " There is still a considerable deal of common field land in Norfolk, though a much less proportion than in many other counties; for notwithstanding common rights for great cattle exist in all of them and even sheep walk privileges in many, yet the natural industry of the people is such, that wherever a person can get four or five acres together, he plants a white thorn hedge round it, and sets an oak at every rod distance, which is consented to by a kind of general courtesy from one neighbor to another " (General View of the Agriculture of Norfolk, p. 22). William THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 309 Township Enclosed Area in Acres No. of Parcels How Situated Open Field Area in Acres Heathell Trowse Swanton Morley Burston Forncett Bixley Cringleford Alborow Trowse and Bixley .... Hellington Calthrope andWoolverton Sprowston Barton Shipham Snitterton Buxton, Haveringham, Straton ■Great Melton Sallows and Wrexham . . .'Shropham 176 73 181 83 8S 45 139 34 164 94 13 97 70 18 71 119 186 8 13 17 14 12 7 24 19 2 18 23 A compact area near the common. Non-contiguous parcels. A compact though elon- gated area. A compact area. A compact area near the common. A compact area. One group of four closes, another of three. An elongated area twice broken by tongues of land. Six non-contiguous par- cels. A compact area adjoining the common. Four non-adjacent par- cels. Two non-adjacent closes. A compact area adjoining the conmion. Threenon-adjacentblocks adjoining the common. Four closes in the com- mon and two home closes. Two detached closes in the field and five home closes. Three non-adjacent closes of II acres in the field, the remainder in two large blocks bordering the common. A compact area bordering the fen and marshes. Manynon-contiguouspar- cels, and 89 acres of common. 24 3 3 8 i| 5 27 18 26 62 3IO ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Plans of the Norwich hospital estates often show single strips enclosed as long rectangular " pightles." At Shropham there were seventeen such, most of them non-adjacent and with a total area of 38 acres; one containing seven acres is labelled " for- merly several pightles." At Great Melton there was in Bow field an enclosed piece of one acre and another strip of one and one- half acres "partly inclosed"; at Shipham two separate acre strips were partly enclosed. In these plans, too, is discernible another characteristic of Norfolk fields which was conducive to piecemeal enclosure. At Shropham a half-acre strip is labelled " a piece in Clark's Close," and near by two other strips together containing one acre are " pieces in another close." In these cases the enclosure of a furlong had preceded consolidation of owner- ship. It is not, however, by any means certain that such con- ditions arose only after the sixteenth century; for early charters sometimes refer to non-contiguous strips in the same croft, as, for instance, " tres pecie divise in Lyckemillecroft." ' Whether the phenomenon be early or late, it imdoubtedly contributed to informal enclosure. If we turn from the enclosure of Norfolk open fields to con- sider the aspect of such of them as did persist into the early years of the eighteenth century, we find the plans of the estates of the Norwich hospitals still instructive. Although, as we have seen, about one- third of these estates were enclosed and another third had in each case only three or four detached strips of land, the remaining third retained considerable open field. It is the situation of these open-field strips that for the moment is of interest. An estate of 38 acres in Buxton, pictured in the accompanying plan, extended into two adjacent parishes. Near the farmhouse were five closes containing together 1 2 acres, while at a distance was a detached close of 6 acres. The remaining 20 Marshall notes the inconvenience arising from such procedure. " But another species of intermixture, much more disagreeable to the occupier, is here singularly prevalent. It is very common for an indosure, lying, perhaps, in the center of an otherwise entire farm, to be cut in two by a slip of glebe or other land lying in it; and stUl more common for small inclosures to be similarly situated " {Rural Economy of Norfolk, i. 8). ' P. R. O. Ancient Charter A 3138, temp. Edw. I. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 311 acres lay in twenty-one strips, all non-contiguous, except that three abutted upon others. The parcels, however, were*not widely scattered. AU lay in the same part of the township^not far from the farmstead, and some were obviously either in the same furlong or in adjacent furlongs. Another estate of 255 Reduced Plan of an Estate belonging to the Girls' Hospital, Norvicli, and situated in the Townships of Buxton, Haveringham, and Straton, Norfolk. Total area, 38 acres. 1714 JV MApxra acres in Shropham lay on the edge of the common, from which 90 acres of " Breck Lands " had been appropriated.^ Eighteen other enclosures, which together contained about loo acres, were for the most part detached from one another, and several had evidently been strips of open field. The remaining 65 acres still lay in open field divided into forty-two strips, some of which were in the same furlong (here called " field "). Although the parcels ' Cf. plate, p. 312. a" c3 .& "1; « > THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 313 of this estate, both open and enclosed, were numerous and dis- parate, they did not lie scattered throughout the township, but were near the farmhouse. As at Buxton, the farm was one of non-contiguous parcels lying in the same section of the village area. The four other hospital estates which retained most open field show similar characteristics.' These field arrangements can in 17 14 scarcely have been recent. If they were, they would have to be explained as repre- senting a transitional stage between widely-scattered strips on the one hand and enclosures on the other. Apart from the cum- bersomeness of a procedure that would eventually necessitate another exchange, the uniformity of the evidence tells against an original wide dissemination of strips. Although in some cases tentative exchanges may have occurred, such a process can hardly have gone on systematically and to the same degree in all the properties before us. Not one of the six is an estate with parcels scattered throughout the village area. If, on the other hand, it be true that the arrangements of 17 14 are an inheritance from a considerably earlier period, we have a contrast to the midland system, the essence of which lay in a wider and more nearly \miform distribution of parcels. For the sixteenth century, admirable data regarding field arrangements are furnished by surveys and maps such as were; made to describe many of the earl of Leicester's estates.^ In these documents there is usually no subdivision by " fields " in the technical midland sense,' but the enumeration proceeds by furlongs, frequently called stadia or quarentinae. Sometimes, happily, these furlongs are so grouped that we can tell in what part of the village area certain of them lay. They are referred to " precincts," divisions formed usually by the highways that traverse the township.* East Carleton and Hethilde were each 1 These estates were at Snitterton, Great Melton, Trowse and Bixley, Sallows and Wroxham. 2 These are among the well-arranged records at Holkham Hall, for access to which I am indebted to the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Leicester, K. G. ^ Corbett, in his study of certain Norfolk surveys (" Elizabethan Village Sur- veys," p. 70, remarks upon the unimportance of the fields. * Miss Davenport found mention of only precincts in the Forncett records (Economic Development of a Norfolk Manor, Cambridge, 1906, p. i). 314 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS thus subdivided into five precincts; ' Burnham Sutton had three, one being considerably smaller than the others;^ Weasenham was cut by the Massingham road into a North and a South pre- cinct, the two being approximately equal in extent.' When " fields " do occur in the surveys they are as inconsequent as the precincts, being determined by the topography of the parish, the relative position of its highways, or the points of the compass. In the same region there thus arose two, three, four, or five fields. Castle Acre had three, West, Middle, and East, divided by highways and of approximately the same size; * not far away, Warham had five unequal fields.^ Among such haphazard fields or precincts we should hardly expect to find an equal distribution of the parcels of the various holdings. From the accompanying tabulation of a few of those at Castle Acre, which has most the semblance of a three-field parish, it can be seen how indifferent to the " fields " was the distribution of acres.' In the first holding nearly three-fourths of the acres lay in West field, in contrast with one-twelfth of them in Middle field; in the second holding three-fourths, again, lay in West field, with the remainder in Middle field and none whatever in East field. The third holding redresses the balance by assign- ing to East field nearly 70 per cent of its acres and to West field less than 10 per cent. Still other holdings lay largely in Middle field, like that of Domina Bell, 80 per cent of whose land was there. Such arrangements are, of course, inconsistent with the midland adaptation of fields to a three-course rotation of crops. At West Lexham the departure from the midland system took another form. As a map of 1575 shows,' there was no division 1 Stowe MS. 870 (field-book of 13 Eliz.). 2 Rawl. MS., B 390 (field-book of 38 Eliz.). ' Holkham Records, field-book of 42 Eliz., and map of the same date (cf. below, p. 327). * Holkham Maps, No. 18. The fields lay to the north of the village, whence two highways extend to the north and northwest. Middle field lay between these high- ways, the other fields to the west and east respectively. ' Holkham Deeds 182, 30 Eliz. " Holkham Deeds 57 (field-book of 25 Eliz.). ' It is among the Holkham Records and is sketched in the accompanying cut. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 3IS o <: o o o V &; i-tlM C4 ■§ '^ I HiN b ><: H (N l-B M 1 P •qW C ^S H|-# Hl^ H-. *-a c^ l- 10 •3 r-l^ '■3 c4 2 z § H-* ■ Hm win Hi-* rtl* H|N . 1 S 0\ ir, in i/l tL4 o\ T|- u H '2 J3T3 Ml-* :^ V ^« H Q II Th 0> iO HIN 1 ■3^ ^ H- (U rtN c4 2 s: S «!■# Hn HN Hi-* Hi* X (N a QC CG f^ .a Ck CT OJ CO n- H fa S ^■B rtlN Hie rt|N hN ^ 1 PO oc 10 00 cs CS ■* |.° HlW «!■« --IN Hi* «!■• . 1 ro ■* ^c CS CS ■siS V H« rtlM n|* H K- vO c] s: S H-* -^l-* H« -^iN H|« -H|N * ^" 1 hi c< to c^ H- M m fe r^ Ti- w « Is nW 1 •sw l.§ FH|-# •HiM Hi'* •s* ■* 10 1- t<5 ■ 1 k- H i 01 -H ^u PO CO 10 ■**• H H H es M M •S '^ TD t- *2 d 2 c eS . 1 s 1 tu C ) 1= c 1 c 1 1 ° 1 < > 3 J3 ' X JC -c -= ^ .H W h- c , ^ , ►£ , g p •2 , P!| 3l6 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS by fields or precincts, but the two largest holdings lay in strips in the northern two-thirds of the township, while the small hold- ings were for the most part thrown together in intermixed strips south and southeast of the village. Neither in the township as a whole nor in this southern part of it is there trace of tripartite division. Of all sixteenth-century Norfolk records those of Weasenham give the most satisfactory idea of the management of the open field in the northwestern part of the coimty. Particularly useful are (i) a large map of 1600, in two parts, giving the names of many of the open-field furlongs, with an accompanying field- book recording the areas and locations of the constituent parcels of the tenants' holdings; and (2) the note-book of a Weasenham farmer,. George Elmdon, describing the sowing of his lands in 1583, 1584, 1588, and 1589. From this group of documents we can discover how the tenants' holdings were distributed among the precincts and how the parcels of Elmdon's holding were grouped for tillage. The map is here outlined, selected holdings from the field-book are summarized, and the information from the note-book is both tabulated and interpreted topographically. The map is slightly incomplete in that it does not give the whole of one sheep pasture.' A later plan shows this pasture or " fold-course," which is in the northwestern part of the township, to have been at least twice as large as the other fbld-course, which is represented. Apart from these two fold-courses, some small commons, and a few enclosures, all lands were open arable field. This open field, constituting about two-thirds of the township's area, was cut into two nearly equal parts by the Massingham road, which divided the Northern from the Southern precinct. In the Southern lay the hamlet and parish of Weasenham St. Mary with its church; in the Northern, the hamlet and parish of Weasenham St. Peter, the church here being just south of the road. If we turn to the field-book to discover the relation of the tenants' holdings to the precincts, we find that the larger holdings were nearly always unequally divided between precincts and that the smaller ones frequently lay wholly within one ' The outline of the map is on p. 322. Map XV 3l8 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS precinct.' This arrangement precludes the possibility that Weasenham was at the end of the sixteenth century cultivated as a two-field township. One of these late sixteenth-century holdings about which we are well informed is that of George Elmdon, who, as noted above, in four separate years (1583, 1584, 1588, 1589) made careful record of how each parcel of his arable was sown. The account, which is unique and valuable, shows that much of the holding was leasehold and varied somewhat in amovmt from year to year. When in 1588 Elmdon drew up a list of the lands in his possession, he had 71 acres of enclosed arable and meadow, 12 acres of open meadow, and 199 acres of open arable field. The notes that describe the sowing of crops account for from 120 to 160 acres yearly, but in the record of any one year a part of the open-field arable usually fails to appear, because laid down for the time in grass. An idea of the character of these notes will be got from the following transcript, relative to the year 1584: — " Wynter corne stubble to sowe barlye on pro anno 1585 In dritelakesmere xi' super Overgate versus boream xii" iii' di. Dowespitt jii' Roysdike als Rushdike di. et ii» yt John Surges had wheat on ii» di. Rougham deale i" di. Ildemere furlonge et howlond iii» et di. Netherdotslands iiii pec' iii" di. rod. Saleyard i' di. Lawell furlonge ii" i' Nether blacklonds i' di. Nether calgrave iii' Abb[uttilig] super marketstie versus austrum i" Item in the Southfeild iii' pease ex occidente de horswonge, yt was barlie the last yere iii' [Total, 4of acres.] ' Holkham Records, field-book of 42 Eliz. The following cases are typical: — Tenant Messuages ^^^^^ Northern Manor of Northall i 183^ mi Manor of Easthall i 205 117J Edward Coke, Esq 6 103^ 327 Anthonie Brovner, Esq i 130I i8f John Burgess i i6i 2i Hillarie Forby 2 3 ag John Barton i 30J 17J John Billings i 5 ij Thos. Linge i 3j Thos. Wright 1 15 THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 319 " Ollands broken upp befoer Xrmas 1584 to sowe barlie on pro an. 1585 by gods grace In Langmere furlonge linge togeather ex latere australi v', V, i", i% i" di. old oUand vi' i' Itm a gorie three rods prope le wyndmill in bastard Sommer- ley at Baylies request for ease in drivinge cattle iii' In Burnhowe deale of olland very latelie layd iii"^ In stadio abb[utting] super northall milhill versus occidentem i" In newdikemere of olland latelie layd i» In newbie prope Mr. Yelvertons i" di. Itm my haye dose .■ i" di. Itm Cookes close i» [Total, 13! acres.] Summa lv» i' Inde pease viii» di. rod, Otes iii', Barlye xlvi" i' di. " A breif of all my somerlies pro anno 1585 In Westgate feild voc[atum] the Southfeild, viz., ulvescrbft, horsewong, brokb'ack, Brenwonge, et Newbie xx' di. In Mildele et Longlond i» iii' In the newe broken feild xi" i' di. In Raisdele i* di. In Blackland feild xiiii" i' di. [Total, 48 acres.] » " Wynter Cornes god prosper it so\Men at ]VIich[aelmas] 1584 Barkers croft in una pecia v» HaUonge furlong in xiv peciis ix" iii' Langmere " " iiii " vi» iii' Endike " " iii " vi» di. Rowland " " i pecia i» i' Abutt[ing] super miUhiU bothom versus occidentem in iii peciis ii" iii' Bumhowedele in i pecia i» di. In stadio ad finem borialem de Shortlond furlong in i pecia iii"' di. In stadio ad finem orientalem ex latere australi de Auppitt furlong in i pecia i' di. Micklecrofte in una pecia i' Powlesfeild in iiii peciis ii» i' di. " W}Titer corne god blesse et prosper it sowen As[cension] 1584 Wheat in pawles feilde nere Auppitfurlong and belowe the wyndmill viii' iii' di. and above the wyndmill ex parte australi de Massingham wey sowen before this v"" of October, 1584 ix" iii' di. ' In the margin are written in Arabic numerals other areas, the sum of which is 5i\ acres. 320 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS " Messylen sowen at michelmes 1584 The upper end of i" di. in Bumhowe bothome i'' di. in howlond furlong di. acra ex austro de le wyndmill the V small lands in Hallonge furlong ii» i' Summa messilen iv ii' di. [Total winter com and " messylen," 6ij acres.] " ' This account, it will be seen, begins with an itemization of 4of acres, which in the autumn of 1584 were winter-corn stubble. Since alone they did not suffice for the barley crop of the next year, some 14 acres of " oUands " were broken up before Christ- mas to be added to them. These oUands were parcels which for a longer or shorter period (" old olland," or " olland very latelie layd ") had been in grass, the term being applied to land enclosed, but particularly to strips in open field. Most of the 14 acres were of the latter character, and nearly one-half of them lay in Langmere furlong near the wheat stubble. Similar strips of open-field arable under grass have been met with in Leicester- shire and in Durham in the early seventeenth century,^ where in a measure their presence betokened the decay of the open field. Here in Norfolk they were a reserve upon which the tenant could draw at any time to increase his allotment for a particular crop. In 1588 Elmdon was tenant of some 27 acres in Ildernere furlong and Westlongland furlong, but he ploughed only 14 of them; the rest were probably in ollands. To judge from the divergence between his total open-field arable in that year and the portion which he ploughed, his ollands must have amounted to about one-fifth of his open field (38 acres out of 199). What further appears from the enumeration is that practically the same areas of open field were set apart for winter corn, for spring com, and for " somerlie " or fallow; and this is true not only for the year 1584 but for 1583 and 1588, as the following summary shows : — " 1583. Acres Sowen wynter come at Michaelmas 41J Wheat Stubble at Michaelmas 41I Pease and Barlie Stubble at Michaelmas [38 -H] '■ Holkham Deeds, 2d series, 231. ' Cf. above, pp. 35, 106. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 32 1 1584- Wynter comes sowen at Michaelmas and at Ascension 56 J \ ^ , Messylen sowen at Michaelmas 4f / '* Wynter come stubble to sowe barlye on [40J] 1 Ollands broken upp befoer Xmias to sowe barlie on . . [13I] / ^^' Somerlie pro anno 1585 [48] 1588. Wynter Come growing in Maye 55J Barlie, otes, pease, and fetches god bless them sowen in Maye 545 [Somerlie not given] 1589 (July is). Wynter come nowe growinge [32] Barlie, pease, otes, sowen '89 64I Somerlie pro aimo 89 et pro siligne 90 48 " The only divergence from symmetry here occurred in the year 1589, when the area under spring corn was increased at the expense of the winter-corn crop. So relatively exact was the division of the other years as strongly to suggest a three-course husbandry, and the suggestion becomes a certainty if the par- cels sown together at any time be followed from year to year. Although the group which, for example, was under winter corn in 1584 was not precisely the same group that was under spring corn in 1585 and again in 1588, it was nearly the same. Perhaps one- third or one-fourth of the parcels changed during the period; but enough remained constant to establish the important fact that a three-course husbandry was to a large extent employed on tenants' land in Norfolk open fields at the end of the sixteenth century. If it were true that a three-course husbandry implied a three- field system, we should at this point declare Norfolk fields akin to those of the midlands. Since, however, the one does not neces- sarily involve the other,i and since certain features about the Weasenham descriptions are unusual, it is desirable to locate, if possible, the three groups of parcels into which Elmdon's open- field arable was roughly but pretty continuously divided. This we may do approximately by comparing the names and descrip- tions of his parcels with the excellent map of 1600. The result is shown on the accompanying plan.^ ^ Cf. above, p. 45. ^ Although most of the furlongs of the original map are named, certain of them are not, a fact which renders the exact location of a few of the parcels problematic. 322 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS It will be noticed that at least two-thirds of Elmdon's parcels lay in the Southern precinct — that is, to the south of Massing- ham way — and that within this precinct they tended to con- centrate near " Overgate " and " Milstye." None were east of the church, and apparently there were none near Goosegate, which ran to the south. A few of the Milstye group extended into the Northern precinct, on the other side of Massingham way. Elsewhere in this precinct, which was larger than the Southern, Ehndon had only two small groups of parcels, one toward the west, the other toward the northeast. In another way we thus arrive at the conclusion which has already been reached from a The names of the highways and field paths are of assistance, however, and the rough grouping of the sketch is reasonably accurate. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 323 consideration of the totals of the field-books of Weasenham and Castle Acre, the conclusion namely that in Norfolk a tenant's arable acres were likely to be concentrated within a particular precinct or field of the township. Holdings so constituted can be reconciled with the existence of a two- or three-field system only on the assumption that a township had groups of two or three fields and that the parcels concentrated lay in one of these groups. Of Elmdon's three groups of parcels that were assigned successively to winter corn, spring corn, and fallow, two, those near Overgate and Milstye, were each distinctly segregated; and the two may conceivably be thought of as having lain in two compact fields. These fields would, however, have constituted only about one-fourth of the total unenclosed arable, an excessive concentration impljdng that there were five or six other similar fields. Apart from the attribution of so large a number of fields to Weasenham in the sixteenth century, a difficulty arises regarding Elmdon's third group of parcels. This, instead of being compact, broke into three sub-groups, one lying in the southwest of the township near the Overgate group, the others in the Northern precinct widely removed one from the other. What we actually have, then, is a concentration of two groups of parcels and part of the third within a relatively circumscribed portion of the township's arable. Such locations preclude a six-field arrangement, and one of eight fields does not comport with three-course husbandry. Despite the three-course rotation of crops at Weasenham, there- fore, the distribution of Elmdon's parcels conflicts with the assumption that the township was one of three or of six fields. Other features of Elmdon's notes emphasize this conclusion. The writer never says, as he so easily might have done had the system been simple, " Sown with winter corn, all parcels in X field." On the contrary, he nearly always assigns his strips to furlongs, with only an occasional mention of fields. The area round Westgate is at times, to be sure, vaguely referred to as Westgate field or South field, but in it lay parcels devoted to different crops. In it, too, lay at least two-thirds of Elmdon's holding. Since for these reasons it cannot be thought of as 324 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS functioning like a midland field, the designation without doubt had merely a topographical connotation. Again, we hear of Kipton field, so named from its proximity to the site of the manor of Kipton. Here lay lal acres of Elmdon's land; but inasmuch as these same acres are elsewhere referred to as in the " newe-broken field " and were situated not far from the " Shepes pasture of Kipton and Northall," the " field " in ques- tion may have been a newly-improved tract of arable. As was just noted, parcels within the same field were at times not vmder the same crops as neighboring parcels. Although, in 1583, 13 acres of Blackland field lay in wheat stubble, 4 J acres of the same field were at the same time in pease stubble. One of the parcels in the extract quoted had been under barley for one season and was to be so during the next year.^ In the fur- long called Newbie there were in 1589 some parcels fallow and some sown with winter corn. All this implies considerable flexi- bilityin the utilization of the open field. The existence of oUands, or strips of grass in the midst of winter and spring corn, testifies further to the same characteristic and helped make it possible. This flexibiUty appears most strikingly in the sowing of Elm- don's open field in 1589. In this year, it will be remembered, the acres hitherto equally divided between winter corn, spring corn, and fallow were unequally apportioned. In preceding years, to each crop and to the " somerlie " had been allotted about 40 acres (1583) or about 55 (1584, 1588). In 1589, the total acreage accounted lor was 145 acres. As usual, one-third of this, 48 acres, was somerlie; of the remainder only 32 acres, were devoted to wheat, while upon 65 acres spring grains were sown. Such expansion and contraction of the acreage assigned to a particular crop would have been possible under a three-field system only if all tenants had agreed to shift for the year the boundaries of the three fields. In Elmdon's note-book there is no hint that his dispositions rest upon communal arrangements, of this sort. As a result of the implications of Elmdon's notes, we are led to conclude that a three-course rotation of crops in the open. ' Cf. above, p. 318. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 325 fields of Norfolk was not necessarily indicative of a three-field system. On the contrary, it proved feasible to till parcels con- centrated in one part of the open field in such a manner as to allot one-third of them to winter corn, one-third to spring corn, and to leave one-third fallow. Under these circumstances each third naturally consisted, as far as possible, of neighboring parcels. It may seem, however, that the introduction in the same year of two crops and a fallow within a Umited portion of the township's arable was a retrogression from the principles of the midland system ; that the obvious convenience of the large and simple divisions of that arrangement was sacrificed, inasmuch as a compact fallow field for the pasturage of sheep and cattle thus became impossible in East Anglia. Such questionings are pertinent and bring us to a new aspect of the subject, namely, the provision made for the pasture of cattle and sheep in East Anglian fields. Certain items regarding Weasenham may serve as introduc- tion. The map of 1600, and still better that of 1726-28, show two large " sheep's courses " distinct from the open fields, one appertaining to the manors of Kipton and Northall, the other to the manor of Easthall.^ Relative to the open strips them- selves the schedule accompanying the later map gives informa- tion. Apart from 717 acres of " break " (the former sheep's course of Northall and Kipton), the largest of Sir Thomas Coke's farms comprised arable land described as follows : — " Subject to its own flock and including whole year grounds, 265 acres, Subject to the flock of Easthall, 56 acres, and to Lord Townshends [flock] in Little Raynham and Martin Raynham, 42 acres." From this it appears that the sheep within a township fell into flocks, each manor having its own flock. Any particular parcel of open-field arable was " subject " to a certain flock, perhaps not to that of the proprietor of the land in question. Pasturage arrangements were not devised with a view to the township as a whole, as in a midland village, where rights of pasturage over ' C£. above, p. 322. 326 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the commons and fallow field inhered in the community and were jointly exercised by all its land-holding members. In Nor- folk pasturage rights over certain pastures and certain portions of the fallow field (together called " fold-courses ") appertained only to particular proprietors, other land-holders being excluded. Since this was the practice, it would have served no end had George Elmdon's acres been distributed among three fields. When one-third of them lay fallow, they would not have been open to all the sheep of the township, but would have been reserved for a particular flock. All arable which in any year lay fallow in the township did not form one common pasture, but had to be subdivided in accordance with the claims of the several flocks. If it be thought that the Weasenham evidence in this matter is insufficient, there is fuller information relative to Holkham, near by. A map of this township, dated 1590, discloses its pasturage arrangements,^ which are further explained by the report of a special royal commission sent in 1584 to ascertain the queen's rights in the " common wastes." ^ The map shows a large South ■field equal in size to both of the other fields, which were known as Church and Stathe. The marshes to the north next the sea constitute one common, the Lyng on the southeast another. Across fields and commons are traced the boundaries of four fold- courses, each comprising about one-fourth of the township's arable and common waste,' but the boundaries nowhere correspond with those of the fields. Three of these fold-courses represent the three manors of the township. The fourth " is fed with the sheepe of one Edmund Newgate and others the Inhabitunts and house holders there. But whether Newgate's be taken as a folde corse or no we [the jurors] knowe not." ^ This arrangement 1 Holkham Maps, No. i , sketched in the accompanying cut. 2 Duchy of Lancaster, Special Conmiission, No. 350. The commission and a part of the return have been printed by Hubert Hall, A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents (2 pts., Cambridge, 1908-09), ii. 17. ' They are known as North course, Caldowe course, Wheatley's course (also called Grigg's), and Newgate's course. The first includes one-half of the marshes, all of Church field, and a part of South field; the second, a large part of South field and one-half of the Lyng; the third, the remainder of the Lyng, with parts of South field and Stathe field; the fourth, a part of Stathe field and one-half of the marshes. * Duchy of Lancaster, Special Commission, No. 350. The jury continues: " No Map XVII 328 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS can only imply that each of the four flocks of sheep always had at its disposal about one-fourth of the unimproved land of the township, and after harvest time could also be pastured over such of the arable as lay within the bounds of its fold-course. If we should try to picture the arable of any course as comprised within one of the three fields, we should at once see that such an arrangement would not have permitted the flock of the course in question to fare the same in winter-wheat years as in fallow ones. At times all of the course would have been under crops, at times all of it fallow. If stubble fodder was always to be available for each of several flocks of a township, a system different from the typical three-field one must have been evolved. Within each fold-course some parcels of land must have been under winter crops, others under spring crops, and others fallow. The actual situation is disclosed in an indenture of 26 EUza- beth that conveyed the Holkham manor called Nealds, alias Lucas.' This manor, we are told, consisted of 25 acres which formed the site of the manor-house, 234 acres in South field, 67 in Church field, and 88 in Stathe field. Appurtenant to these lands were certain common rights of pasture, viz. : — (a) " Item a Liberty of Fould course and Fouldage and shacke with shepe in the southe fielde of Holkham [but, as the map shows, by no means over the entire South field]. (b) " Item a common of pasture ... for horse, neate, and sheept at all tymes in the year in fourteen score acres lyinge in the southe parte of Holkham Common Ljoige. [This area and the preceding comprised " Caldowe fold course " on the map.] (c) " Item another common of pasture ... in all tymes of the year for horse, neate, and swyne in all the commons of Holk- ham aforesayde. (d) " Item another common of pasture ... for horse, neate, and swyne [but not for sheep] uppon all the feilds, grounds, and marshes within Holkham aforesaid lyinge freshe and unsowne man ought to kepe or mainteyne any folde corse within the marshe. But of late there is one Edmund Newgate taketh upon [him] to kepe five hundred shepe there whereas before tyme his Grandfather and others Kepte not above two hundred yet there upon theire privat marshe." ' Holkham Records, uncatalogued. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 329 yearly from the feaste of St. Mychael the archeAngell or the ende of harveste until the annunciation of our Ladye or untill suche tyme before the sayde feaste ... as the said feilds and grounds be sowen agayne." From this it is clear that all the village cattle ranged over the entire common waste throughout the year and over the imsown fields from October to February. From February to October they had no access to the fallow arable, which was reserved for the various flocks of sheep. Each flock of sheep, furthermore, never passed beyond the bounds of its fold-course; within this course it was presumably folded from day to day over the fallow acres. Since in all probability wattles were used, no inconven- ience arose if sown and fallow acres lay side by side. Hence came the flexible, particularist, more modern system that was employed in the days of George Elmdon. It was an arrange- ment far better for the soil than was that of the midlands, since by it each parcel of arable was assured of fertilization during the fallow season. Some of the thriftless convenience of the mid- land system may have been sacrificed, but superior agricultural method and profitable sheep-raising were compensations. Touching the subjects discussed above — the distribution of the parcels of a holding throughout the arable area of the town- ship and the rotation of crops practiced upon them — we should like testimony from an earlier time than the end of the sixteenth century, and we happily find it in various items that carry back a little the regime of insignificant fields and three-course hus- bandry. Most numerous are data relating to Holkham. This township, it will be remembered, revealed on the map of 1591 a large South field and two smaller fields to the north next the sea, called Church or West field and Stathe or North field. That the distribution of a tenant's acres among these three fields had for a long time been unequal, becomes apparent from an examina- tion of several earHer terriers. In 26 Elizabeth the manor of " Nealds " allotted its arable to the three in the proportion of 233, 66, and 87 acres respectively,' while in 3 Edward VI the apportionment of the lands of Edward Newgate was 13, 7, and ' Holkham Records, uncatalogued. 330 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 55 acres.i In a terrier of " Pomffrett " lands drawn up in 30 Henry VIII the subdivision was 16, 2I, and 6 acres.^ In 2 Henry VII Sir Thomas Briggs's manor of HiUhall was so situated that 132 acres lay in North field, 45 in Church field, and 390 in South field.' The same manor was smaller in 17 Edward IV, and of its parcels 128 acres were in North field, with 68 in Stathe field, 33 in Church field, and 105 in South field.* The nearest approach to an equal division of acres in the fifteenth-century Holkham terriers is the assignment of 19 acres of Galfridus Por- ter's holding to South field and 17 to North field ;5 but in a con- temporary conveyance of 39 Henry VI the 50 acres which John Newgate transferred to his son Thomas lay almost entirely in the northeastern part of the village arable area.^ The distribution of the acres of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century holdings among the fields of Holkham thus seems to have been chronically irregular. For discovering what rotation of crops was favored in fifteenth- century Norfolk a Holkham charter of 20 September, 16 Richard II, is of value." In an exchange of lands, John and Isabell Lyng " invenerunt terras seisonatas ut inferius patet, vidz. : i acra in crofta de terra frista semel arata non compostata, iiii acre dimidia in campo australi semel arate de terra firista non compostate [fallow, probably to be sown with wheat the next year] iiii acre dimidia in eodem campo que fuerunt cum ordeo anno elapso [seminate] semel arate non compostate [barley stubble, probably to he fallow for a year] iiii acre in eodem compostate anno elapso non arate [probably sown with wheat in the year past and to be sown with barley in the coming season]." Here not only were the 12 acres all in the same field, but they were apparently under a three-course rotation and were manured ' Holkham Records, uncatalogued. 2 Ibid. ' Holkham Field-book, 75. « Ibid. " Holkham Records, uncatalogued. " Holkham Deeds, 2d series, 29. ' Ibid., 77. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 33 I at least once every three years. The sixteenth-century system is carried back to the end of the fourteenth, and assurance is given regarding the method of fertilization about which later surveys are silent.^ Other East Anglian townships furnish early evidence not un- like that from Holkham. In the time of Henry VIII a manor at Scratby is described as comprising, besides 9 acres enclosed, 29 acres in twelve parcels in South field and 16 acres in nine par- cels in North field.^ A Great Massingham terrier of the late fifteenth century enumerates the parcels of three holdings in four unnamed fields.' The respective areas in acres were 8|, 8f , 3f > 7§; 9, 6f , 3f ) 6f ; 2f , 2|, i\, i|: an irregularity in appor- tionment not to be remedied in any instance by a combination of the last two areas. In 8 Henry V a manor at Ormesby was held by several tenants whose parcels lay principally in North, South, and Little fields, but so unevenly distributed as often to be almost entirely within one field.* At Rockland in 23 Henry VI the manor of Kyrkhall Moynes had its small parcels princi- pally in South and West fields, although there was something in North and East fields.^ Obviously, the distribution of the acres of fifteenth-century holdings among fields was as capricious as in the sixteenth century. Relative to the matter of tillage, a lease of the manor of Bed- dingfield, Suffolk, dated 19 Richard II, instructs us as to how certain lands there were sown. Eleven acres were in wheat, of which two were " compostate," two were fallow, six sown with barley, eight with peas, thirteen with oats.* Whether these acres were open or enclosed we do not learn, but the small num- ber left fallow points to a husbandry almost as far advanced for ' The few other Holkham transfers of the fourteenth century which take the trouble to mention fields are regardless of exact division. Such is the case with 3 acres which in 4 Edward III were in two pieces in South field, and with 6 acres of which in 2 Edward II at least 4! were in South field (Holkham Deeds, 2d series, 37, 24). ^ Rents, and Survs., Portf. 12/59. * Ibid., 22/54. » Ibid., 22/46. ' Add. MS. 33228. ' Add. Char. A 3338: "Terra seminata cum frumento xi acre unde ii acre compostate; item terra warecta ii acre; item cum ordeo vi acre; item cum pisa viii acre; item cum avena xiii acre." 332 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the fourteenth century as was the contemporary Kentish tillage which cultivated all arable acres yearly.^ The foregoing testimony of surveys and terriers tends in general to show that Norfolk " fields " had from the beginning of the fifteenth century no agricultural significance, and that, although a three-course rotation usually prevailed, it was not dependent upon a three-field system. It may be objected, however, that an earlier system was then in decay, one in which names of fields had more than topographical connotation. Without doubt an old system was in decay in the fifteenth century, but scarcely in the sense intimated. What this earUer situation was must now be explained. With regard to tillage, the custom in East Anglian fields before the sixteenth century was not unlike that practiced by George Elmdon in the days of the Armada. Information on this subject is to be had from extents of Norfolk demesne lands contained in inquisitions post mortem of the first half of the fourteenth cen- tury.^ Sometimes these contain statements which, with change of areas, are like the following from East Bradenham: " Sunt c acre terre arabilis per minus centum de qmbus possunt seminari per annum Ix et seminate fuerunt ante mortem predicti Rogeri [inquisition dated i6 June, 1 1 Edward III] et valent per annum xx solidos, pretium acre iiii d. Et totum residuum nihil valet per annum quia iacet ad warectam et in communi." ' The signifi- cant information here is that one-third of the deinesne land was fallow throughout every third year, and then was of no value, since it lay in common. Occasionally the phrase is " in coinmuni campo," leaving no doubt that the demesne was open common field. ^ The townships about which this could be said lay in eastern as' well as in western Norfolk, a fact that fixes the cus- tom upon the entire county.^ Although similar remarks about ' Cf. above, p. 302. 2 Cf. above, p. 46. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 51 (11). * " Sunt cxx acre terre arabilis . . . de quibus iiii" acre terre seminabantur hoc anno . . . et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi campo " (ibid., 51 (10), Newton). * Ibid., 46 (3) Gayton, 45 (18) Rainham and Islington, all three in the west of the county; 51 (10) Caistor and Hellesdon, in the center and east. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 333 Suffolk townships are less numerous,' they occur often enough to show that a three-course rotation upon open-field demesne could at this time be found throughout East Anglia.^ Testimony like this, if from midland counties, has been cited as quasi evidence for the existence of a three-field system there.' Without doubt the presumption is that arable land which was fallow and common every third year lay in three (or six) common fields. Where other evidence, therefore, points to the prevalence of the three-field system, as it does in the mid- lands, a statement hke that quoted above may be looked upon as credible testimony that a particular township had three compact open fields. With East Anglia, however, the case is different. There we have seen in the sixteenth century a three-course rotation of crops upon open fields divorced from a three-field system, and a similar situation in the fourteenth century is not improbable. The imphcation of the phrases in the extents will therefore depend upon other contemporary evidence touch- ing the location of holdings in the open fields. To interpret such evidence we shall have to determine the nature of East Anglian units of villein tenure. Inasmucti as ho reference to a virgate, the unit prevalent in the midlands and the north, has thus far been found here, it may be that the omission points to peculiarities of field arrangements, just as the character of the Kentish iugum lay at the base of a unique field system. If sd, the nature of the early unit of villein tenure in East Anglia assumes increased importance and demands attention. During the sixteenth century and even at a much later period certain parcels of an East Anglian holding were often said to ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 41 (i), Thurston; 41 (19), Monewden, Badmon- disfield, and Lidgate, the last two on the Cambridgeshire border. ' But it was not universal. At Kettleburgh, in Suffolk, the soil was of poor qijaKty (debUis), " et quolibet anno medietas iacet frisca et iacet in communi per totum annum " (ibid., 51 (2)), More noteworthy was the case of a tenement of sixty acres at Wymondham: " Sunt ibidem k acre terre arabilis . . . unde seminabantur hoc anno semine yemali ante mortem predicte Alicie [inquisition, 2 June, 15 Edw. Ill] xx acre et semine, quadragesimali xxx acre. ... Et x acre terre predicte iacemt in commimi per totum annum quum non seminantur " (ibid., 65 (13)). Thus it was sometimes customary to fallow only one-sixth of the arable, '• ' ' Cf. above, p. 46. . 334 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS belong to one or another "tenementum " — ^to Smith's tenement, for example, or to Bunting's. In the fifteenth century all the parcels of a holding could at times be assigned to the tenementa of which they had once formed portions. A tabulation of the acres of two holdings described in a survey of Bawdsey, Suffolk, dated i6 Henry VI, will make this clear, and will show incidentally the insignificant part played by field divisions at that time.' Sitting tenant Names of the Tenementa to which the Parcels belonged En- closed Inle Melle- feld In Lyllond Inle Estfeld In Dal Miscel. and Unspec. Thomas Mekilborgh John Godwyn Alex. Frebner Ston Chouks Fenkell Filles Chapman . . . Gellys Hailles Frebner .... Ipris I?] Godewyn . . . Crour' Crunnok . . . Hobard .... I 2i 2 Surveys of East Anglian manors dating from the late fourteenth or from the fifteenth century are likely to be cast in a mould much like that of Bawdsey. They point, it is clear, to a still earlier time in which the tenementa were the principal agrarian units of the township, instead of merely serving, as they did in the fifteenth century, for the apportionment of rents and services. In surveys and rentals of the early fourteenth or, better still, of the thirteenth century, the tenementa assume their earlier prominence. Surveys were not then drawn up, as at Bawdsey, under the names of the contemporary tenants who had parcels in different tenementa, but they were arranged according to the tenementa themselves, in each of which the parcels were assigned > Add. MS. 23948. 2 With toft. ' With cottage. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 335 to the tenants of the hour. Nearly always a tenementum was held by several men, who usually had parcels in other tenementa as well. In rentals of the time, too, brief and parsimonious of names as they are, one often finds reference to such items as the tenemen- tum of John Smith "et parcenarii sui" or "et participes sui." One of the most instructive of these earlier surveys is that of Martham, Norfolk., giving as it does a detailed account of field arrangements.^ Situated near the east coast, this manor of Nor- wich priory was surveyed in 1291, the fourth year of Prior Henry of Lakenham. The villein holdings are described with reference to the tenants who formerly held them, and are then assigned with minute specification to the contemporary tenants. A typical description of one such holding is as follows : — " Thomas Knight tenuit quondam xii acras terre de villenagio que vocatur i eriung^ et reddit inde . . . [services and rents follow]. Sciendum est quod xii acre de villenagio vocantur unum Eriung. Et quilibet tenens unum Eriung faciet in omnibus sicud predictum est de tenemento Thome Knight. Et habentur in Martham xxii Eriung et iii acre de villenagio et omnes isti herciabunt totam terram Ville exceptis terris quesitis ad siligi- nem, avenam, et falihes. De quibus xii acris terre nunc sunt xii tenentes, viz., Martha Knight tenet iii acras et dimidiam de quibus dimidia acra iacet in campo de Martham qui vocatur Estfeld . . . Item dimidia acra iacet in eodem campo . . . " i roda et dimidia iacent in campo qui vocatur Mone- chyn . . . " dimidia acra iacet in Damiottoftes . . . " " acra " " Fendrovetoftes . . . " " Roda " " Morgrave . . . " i Roda et dimidia iacent in Tofto suo cum mesuagio . . . " dimidia Roda iacet in Monechyn . . . " XXX perticate iacent in eodem campo . . . " dimidia Roda iacet in Westfeld . . . " XXX perticate iacent in Monechyn . . . '■ Stowe MS. 936, ff. 37-115. ^ An eriung is the Anglo-Saxon term for a ploughing or plough-land. 336 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Johanes Knyght tenet i acram dimidiam et i Rodam terra iacentes in campo da Martham de quibus dimidia acra iacet in Wastfeld . . . Item dimidia Roda iacet in Fendrove . . . " i Roda et dimidia iacent in Estfeld . . . " i " " " " " aodem campo . . . " i " iacet in Estfeld . . . Andreas Knyght tenet i acram et dimidiam et i Rodam terra iacentes in campo de Martham. Da quibus dimidia acra iacet in Estfeld . . . Item i Roda iacet in Fandrovetoftes . . . " i " at dimidia iacent in Tof to suo cum masuagio . . . « i « « « « « Monechyn . . . " i " iacet in Westfald . . . Willielmus Anneys tenet i acram de qua dimidia acra iacat in Estfeld . . . Item dimidia acra iacet in Estfeld . . . Beatrix Knight tenet i acram terre de qua dimidia acra iacet in Estfeld . . . Item dimidia acra iacet in eodem campo . . . Robertus Alajoi tenet i rodam iacentam in campo de Mar- tham qui vocatur Estfeld .... Robertus Wuc tenet dimidiam acram In Estfeld . . . HugoBaUe " " « " Robertus filius Roberti mercatoris tenet i acram terre de qua dimidia acra iacat in Westfald . . . Item dimidia Roda iacet in eodem campo . . . Item i Roda et dimidia iacent in Fendrovetoftes . . . Willielmus Folpa tenet i Rodam et dimidiam* iacentes in Estfeld . . . Willielmus Godrich tenet i Rodam et dimidiam iacentes in Estfald . . . Et omnes isti tenentas raddunt servicia pro pleno Eriung sicut fecit Thomas Knight in tempore suo." ^ Relative to a holder of " mulelond " the record runs,'' " William Hereman tenuit quondam vi acras terre que vocantur Mulelond » Stowe MS. 936, f. 396. 2 Ibid., £. 70J. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 337 pro xvi d. de Redditu [obKgations follow] . . . De qiiibus nunc sunt ix tenentes," whose holdings are detailed as before. There seems to have been no unit of mulelond, since the holdings of the " former tenants " contained a variable number of acres. Similarly, the socage land is referred to " former tenants " in varying amounts, and these holdings too had been parcelled out among contemporary tenants. In the case of the villein eriung of Thomas Knight it is easy to see that the existing situation had come about through a sub- division of the twelve-acre holding among heirs.' Four tenants still bore the name of Knight and had the largest shares in the eriung, together retaining seven and three-fourths acres of it. They may have been three or four generations removed from the ancestor who gave his name to the holding. If so, Thomas Knight Hved in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century. After this introduction to a thirteenth-century Norfolk survey, we may proceed in our inquiry regarding field systems. If the foregoing references to the East and West fields of Martham suggest that a two-field system prevailed there at the end of the thirteenth century, its existence should be revealed in the distribution between these fields of the acres of the old units. Since at Martham the villein eriungs were the holdings most invariable in size, being always in theory twelve acres, they should be looked upon as the standard units and most likely to be evenly divided between fields. The condition of a few typical holdings, villein and other, is pictured in the following table : — ■ ■3 a West Field East Field Former Tenant ,, -a .S .. -f •s„ (" tenuit quondam ") m Is i2§ « s< n Thomas Knight .... villein 12 2 i 6 li IS 6J 3l 12 Thomas Knight .... socage 3 O o o o 8 3 3i Humfridus de Sco . . socage lO 7 10} 5 \ 3 li 2} 14} Humfridus de Sco . . villein 4 o o 3 ij o 2i Syware filius Galfridi villein i8 o 3} 24 7J I i Hi Syware filius Galfridi socage o o i 7 2i 3 \ 4 Stephanus Byl villein 3 I J o o 9 i\ I 5 Nicholas Haral mulelond 3 I 3 o o 9 3 h 6J ' That socage and villein holdings in East Anglia were ever subject to partible transmission seems to have escaped the notice of legal historians. 338 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS From the table it is dear that the holding of no " former tenant " was divided equally between the two fields, and this is true whether land of all tenures be considered or, as is more to the point, whether attention be confined to villein land. Even in the midlands free land was not always very evenly apportioned among fields. That the Norfolk villein eriimg, however, the vuiit which corresponded with the evenly-divided midland virgate, should show an indifference to equal division between " fields," and an inclination to he largely in one of them, is significant. It imphes that the East and West fields had no agrarian impor- tance at the time when the eriung took form. To know just how the parcels of an eriung lay in relation to one another would be information well worth having. Unfor- tunately, they are described in the Martham survey as they had come to appear in the hands of the numerous tenants of .1291. How many there were and how related when the " former tenants " held them we are left to puzzle out from the incom- plete boundaries that are given. The description of one of the half-eriungs which lay entirely in the West field is substantially as follows : — Wm Godhey tenuit quondam vi acras de vilenage pro dimidio Eriung. De quibus sunt nimc xi tenentes, viz. : ' Robert Koc, messuage and two tofts; i| roods next Osbertus Harald on the north; i|, Simon Koc N; 2, Walter de Scoutone W; 2, Thomas Mome W. Robert de Hyl i§, Alan de Syk W. Richard Mercator i , John clericus E; i, Thos. Mogge W; |, Robert Koc S. Simon Koc |, Roger Mercator S. Osbertus Harald 2 , Robert Koc S; 25 poles, Rob't KocS. Beatrix Harald 25 poles, Osbertus Harald S. Simon Cok i , Robert Koc S. Walter de Scoutone 2§, Robert de Hill E. ' The neighbor on one side of each parcel is specified, as, for example, " iuxta Osbertus Harald ex parte aquilonari," but the parcel is not completely bounded. The abbreviated locations which follow should all be read in this way, the areas being in roods unless otherwise specified. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 339 Alan de Syk i|, Robert de Hill E. Alexander de Sco 2 , Robert Koc E. Robert filius Willielmi Webbester 10 poles, Robert Koc S. From this description it is pretty clear that many of these parcels lay not only in the same field but also side by side. Such were the parcels of Robert Koc and Osbertus Harald, of Robert Koc and Simon Cok, of Robert de Hyl and Alan de Syk. One begins to suspect that the six acres of William Godhey's half- eriung were after all not necessarily much separated one from another. Since the Martham descriptions are somewhat incon- clusive in this respect, we turn to another survey that furnishes what is perhaps our best evidence relative to the appearance of the original East Anglian villein tenementum. This survey, which is incomplete at beginning and end, relates to Wjonondham, a township southwest from Norwich, and is written in a hand of the time of Henry VII.' Although many descriptions are not detailed and others break off with the state- ment that the residue of the tenementum is in the hands of the lord, certain of them are, none the less, instructive. The tene- menta were by no means so subdivided in the fifteenth century as were those at Martham in the thirteenth. If this should lead one to suspect that no great period of time had elapsed since they were in the hands of their original tenant, the suspicion would be dispelled by the discovery that not one of the existing tenants of a tenementum bore its name as his surname, after the manner of the Knights who continued to share in Thomas Knight's eriung at Martham. The tenementum here, as there, probably goes back at least to the thirteenth century. More ancient than that it can scarcely have been, if we may judge from such names as Toly, Crisping, Caly, and Davys. The novel feature about these Wymondham tenementa is that they can in some instances be shown to have been nearly com- pact areas: — " Tenementum Toly iuxta Grishaugh continet i mesuagium, xi acras, iv Rodas terre . . . Unde ' Land. Rev., M. B. 206, £[.188-215. 340 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Thomas Knyght alias Kette tenet dictum mesuagium, ix acras, iii Rodas terre . . . iacentes iuxta Grishaugh Ricardus Deynes tenet ii acras pasture inclausas . . . abut- tantes . . . super Grishaugh versus austrum." . . . ' Here the entire tenement bordered upon " Grishaugh " and can- not have been in more than two parcels at most. " Tenementum Havercroft continet xiiii acras terre et bosci cum mesuagio vacante, Unde Thomas Caly tenet totum tenementum iacens in partrike- feld . . . Edwardus Groote tenet inde ii acras terre in Cobaldisfeld." ^ Six-sevenths of this tenement lay in " partrikefeld," a feature in which it resembled one of its neighbors. " Tenementum Ricardi Aleyn continet i mesuagium edifica- tum et xxxii acras et dimidiam terre, Unde Galfridus Symond tenet dictum mesuagium ac xxvi acras et dimidiam terre, pasture, et subbosci in parkrykefeld . . . Johanis Caly tenet v acras terre ... in eodem campo . . . Thomas Cooke alias Blexter tenet unum inclusum infra mesuagium suum vocatum Benecroft . . . et continet i acram iii Rodas Item tenet unamRodam dicti tenementi iuxtaBenecroft." ' Practically all of this tenement lay in " partrikefeld." Finally a small holding is briefly dismissed as follows: — " Tenementum Pering continens iiii acras terre in una pecia restat in manu domini." * These four illustrations, which are particularly comprehensible since subdivision is slight and locations are traceable, make it certain that the early tenementum was at times a nearly com- pact area. Three of the above tenementa were relatively large, and two of these lay almost entirely in a single " field." Some non-adjacent parcels there may, of course, have been in this field, as descriptions of other tenementa imply was at times the case. The twenty-four acres of " Tenementum Cobalds," for example, all of which except two acres were held by Thomas Neker, lay " in ' Land Rev., M. B. 206, f. 208. ' Ibid., f. 209. ' Ibid., f. 210. < Ibid. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 34I diversis pedis in Cabaldisfeld, partrikfeld, et Domiliam hallfeld." In general, however, the details of this survey reinforce the im- pression got from the half-eriung of William Godhey at Martham. So far as we can ascertain the appearance of the original tene- mentum in Norfolk, it seems to have been either a compact area or a group of not widely separated parcels. After examining above the appearance of a sixteenth-century Norfolk holding, we proceeded to inquire into the pasturage arrangements of that date and found them based upon so-called fold-courses.i A division of each township was set off as the fold-course for a certain flock, and over the part of this which lay fallow in any year the flock was folded from February to October. Since the thirteenth-century tenementa were quite as regardless of a three-field disposition of their parcels as were the sixteenth-century holdings, we shall expect to find in early docu- ments pasturage arrangements not unlike those which later prevailed. Useful information touching this point is given in a series of extents and custumals drawn up in 1278 and referring to the manors of the bishop of Ely, several of which were in Norfolk and Suffolk. Three items in particular relate to methods of tillage. First of all, it appears that the tenant of a full villein holding was bound to carry manure for the lord and spread it upon the fields. Sometimes he carried for a half-day, some- times he drew five or six cartloads, and once, it is estimated, the labor occupied all the tenants for a week.^ Evidently stabling of stock and manuring of fields were to some degree practiced. Such a device, however, was not the chief rehance for main- taining the fertihty of the soil. As in the sixteenth century, this 1 Cf. above, p. 325 sq. ^ " Item iste cariabit fimum domini per dimidiam diem seme! in anno. ... Et quotiens opus fuerit sparget fimum a mane usque ad horam nonam ..." (Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f . 221, Derham, Norfolk). " Et debent cariare quindecim mun- cellos composti in quoscunque campos dominus voluerit pro uno opere. Unde duo moncelli vel tres facient unam carectatam " (ibid., t. 259, Glemsford, Suffolk). " Et iste et omnes pares sui cariabunt totum compostum domini per unam septi- mam ad festum Sancti Michaelis. ... Et quod cariaverint debent spargere " (ibid., f. 2436, Bridgham, Norfolk). 342 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS end was achieved by the folding of sheep and cattle upon arable fallow, a usage likewise revealed by the custumals. On many manors the tenant of villein land had to make wattles and carry them about. Often he furnished five with ten supports and moved them at least once a year.* Such procedure, it may be said, refers merely to the demesne acres upon which the sheep of tenant and lord were folded together. In certain instances it is indeed specifically declared that the tenants' sheep shall lie "in falda domini " throughout the year and the cattle from Pentecost to Michaelmas.^ Had this always been the case, an enclosed demesne might account for the requisitions, and we need assume no unusual field system. It is the third item of the extents that forces us to beheve that the system was unique. This item specifies the payment of " faldagium." " Et dabit de faldagio ad Gulam Augusti per annum pro quolibet bove unum denarium. Pro qualibet vacca steriU unum denarium. Pro qualibet vacca cum vitulo duos denarios. Et pro quahbet iu- venca duorum annorum vel pro quolibet Bovecto eiusdem etatis unum obulum. Et pro quinque ovibus unum denarium. Et ideo nee oves sue nee averia sua iacere debent in falda domini." ' The payment of foldage according to this scale exempted the tenant's sheep and cattle from being folded with those of his lord over the demesne acres. Upon several manors, especially in Suffolk, the tenant had no obligation either to fold sheep or to pay if he did not, the custom being that " oves sue non iacebunt in falda domini." * In the Ramsey cartulary the same privilege is recorded in slightly different phrase. That the villein " habet suam faldam," or at least had it during a part of ' " Et dabit decern palos et quinque cleyas falde sine cibo. ... Et portabit quinque cleyas falde domini et totidem palos semel in anno de uno campo in alium sine cibo . . ." (Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f. 243J, Bridgham). 2 " Oves sue iacebunt in falda domini per totum annum preter oves matrices tempore agnilis. ... Et omnia alia averia sua iacebunt in falda domini a pentecoste usque ad festum Sancti Martini preter vaccas. . . . Et boves similiter iacebunt in falda domini inter pentecostem et festum omnium sanctorum si non dederit cupam pro eis ut supradictum est " (ibid.). ' Ibid., f. 2216, Derham. < Ibid., f. 2596, Glemsford; f. 265, "Herthirst"; f. 272, Rattlesden; f. 2796, Hitcham; f. 288J, Barking; f. 2966, Wetheringsett; f. 303, Brandon. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 343 the year, was a custom there in the twelfth as well as in the thirteenth century.^ How, we may now ask, could a tenant's privilege of having his own fold be realized ? Under a system of enclosures there would have been no difficulty, but in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries East Anghan fields were largely open. Assume now that the arable of a township was divided into two or three (four or six) compact divisions cultivated Uke those of the midlands. There it was the practice for sheep and cattle to roam over the entire field which lay fallow, the lord's acres (if in open field) and the tenants' acres sharing alike. If under such a system tenant or lord were to have had " sua falda," he would have been obliged to hedge about his parcels with wattles, thereby sacrific- ing the prime advantage secured by the compact fallow field — the freedom from attending much to the wandering sheep and cattle. Since one aim of the midland system was to attain this convenience, we do not hear about the use of wattles in midland open fields or about any tenant having " sua falda." Apply again the privilege of " sua falda " to such a field sys- tem as was practiced in Norfolk in the sixteenth century. There the flock of each manor had in the township a definite area, apart from \mploughed pasture and waste, over which it had rights. Beyond this area it did not pass, and within it some parcels were fallow and some were sown each year. To protect the growing corn wattles must have beien necessary. Since the lord's flock had to be kept from the cultivated acres and folded upon the parcels of fallow until harvest time, the complexity would in no wise have been increased if the tenant were to employ the same pro- cedure relative to his acres. He, too, Hke his lord, might well have had some of his parcels under crops, and others fallow with his sheep folded upon them. The villein's privilege of having " sua falda," recorded in the Ely cartulary, thus accords en- tirely with the Norfolk method of pasturing sheep, but not at all with that of the midlands. That it is noted in the twelfth- and thirteenth-century documents argues for the early existence ' Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia (ed. W. H. Hart, Rolls Series, 3 vols., 1884-93), i- 423, i"- 261, 262, 264. 3 44 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS of the East Anglian system, and the case is strengthened by the divergence manifested in the customs of the manors of Ramsey abbey. No one of the long Hst of the midland possessions of that abbey possessed the privilege of independent foldage. Yet, as we have seen,i the two Norfolk manors had it, and the selection of them for such a favor suggests that they were in a condition to take advantage of it as the others were not. Pasturage arrangements adopted in East Anglia thus concur with the disposition of the parcels of a tenementum relative to the fields, in pointing to a unique field system. Such descrip- tions of this system as have so far been utilized are, except for certain items in regard to foldage, not earUer than the late thir- teenth century. It remains to inquire whether it is possible to discover at what time the tenementa took form. If we were to judge from names alone, we should not assign them to a period earlier than the thirteenth century. It is easy to see that the land which, in the Martham survey of 1291, Thomas Knight is said to have held {quondam tenuit) would soon be known as Knight's tenementum, that the socage land would become Knight's free tenementum, and the eriung Knight's vil- lein or bond tenementimi. Thomas Knight, himself, as we have seen, must have lived either in the early thirteenth century or at the end of the twelfth. The names which attached themselves to the tenementa at Wymondham and at Baudsey often included surnames, as in the case of " tenementum Ricardi Aleyn, or " tenementum Alexandri Frebnere." Since villeins seldom bore surnames before the thirteenth century, the nomenclature of the surveys would seem to assign the tenementum to a period not much earlier than this. Even if the names of the tenementa did not much antedate 1200, there is reason for thinking that the unit itself was older, though not always, to be sure, under the name " tenemen- tum." This term became usual only in the fourteenth century, and Thomas Knight's holding, though referred, to as a tenemen- tum, properly bore the infrequent Anglo-Saxon designation ' Cf. above, p. 342. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 345 eriung.' In the thirteenth century the units of villein tenure often assumed other names. " Plena terra " was much in favor. The excellent series of Ely extents already quoted frequently employs this phrase and attaches to it, as to a unit, the eniunera- tion of villein services. Its area was uniform within the same manor. At Walpole it contained 30 acres; at Walton,, 24; at Feltwell, 20; at Northwold, 48 ; at Terrington, 24.^ Sometimes no name at all was given to the full villein holding. The Ely manor of Emneth leaves unnamed its unit of 23 acres,' and the Ramsey cartulary finds no term to apply to holdings " in lan- cectagio." ^ At this point it will be of assistance to note the way in which Norfolk manors are treated by this cartulary in its two series of extents, one from the middle of the twelfth century, the other from the middle of the thirteenth.* Ramsey had only two con- siderable manors in Norfolk. — Brancaster and Ringstead — whereas in the midlands she had many. In the latter the villein holdings were always denominated virgates, and the enumeration of virgates is usually lengthy. At Ringstead, however, as we learn, " Non sunt ibi hydae, vel virgatae terrae. Aestimantur, tamen, quod ibi sint quinque hydae terrae praeter dominicum." At Brancaster, " Ibidem sunt decem hydae. Nescitur, quot vir- gatae faciunt hydam, nee quot acrae faciunt virgatam." ^ Far- ther on we are told that three of the Brancaster hides were villein land. The extents which thus deny the existence of virgates 1 The word occurs in an important passage in the Ramsey cartulary. C£. below, p. 348. 2 Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, £f. 192, 199, 254, 2586, 182. ' Ibid., f. 206. * In this cartulary such is the usual designation for villein land. " Gilbertus Potekyn . . . recognovit viginti quatuor acras terrae, quas tenet de domino Abbate, esse lancectagium Abbatis, et quod debent omnes consuetudines serviles, salvo corpore sue " (court roll of 1239, Cartulary of Ramsey Abbey, i. 424). ' In the first series we find that " Eadwinus de Depedale tenuit in diebus Regis Henrici, et nunc tenet ..." (ibid., iii. 261); many extents of the second series are dated 1250-1252. Unlike the tenants in the second series, those in the earlier one usually have no surnames, and their names have a more archaic Saxon or Danish character than was usual a century later. " Ibid., i. 405, 413. 346 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS and are somewhat vague about hides date from about 1240 to 1250.1 From the absence of the term virgate, however, it does not follow that units of villein holding were non-existent. On the contrary, the uniformity in size which characterized holdings " in lansectagio " both at Brancaster and at Ringstead points con- clusively to a recognition of such units. At Brancaster the three villein hides in the thirteenth-century extent were constituted as follows: 38 holdings of 12 acres each, 17 of 24 acres, two of 60 acres, two of 30 acres, and four of 15 acres. In the extent of a century earlier we find 39 holdings of 12 acres each, one of 32 acres, three of 16 acres, and two of 18 acres. Obviously at both periods the unit was 12 or 24 acres. At Ringstead the holdings were less symmetrical. In the thirteenth century there were 13 holdings of 10 acres, two of 14, and single holdings of 28, 22, 12, 8, and 7 acres. In the twelfth century there were ten eight- acre holdings, with one of 1 2 and one of 1 1 acres. The unit seems to have shifted from eight to ten acres and the total villein land to have increased considerably. Mr. Hudson notes the existence of similar unnamed units of villein land in two extents which he publishes. In the manor of Banham in 1281, out of 32 customary tenants who together held 244 acres of arable, seven had 7 acres each and five others had multiples of 7 ; in the manor of Bradcar in Shropham six customary tenants in 1298 had 8 acres each and the seventh had 6 acres.^ If Norfolk units of villein tenure, even though unnamed, seem to have existed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it may appear fanciful to insist upon the absence of the term virgate in descriptions of them. They might well enough, it will be said, have been called virgates or half-virgates. By midland extent- makers, indeed, the terms were sometimes applied to the Nor- ^ Neither extent is dated, but none in the series bears a date later than 1252. That of Ringstead is followed by a court roll of 1240, which seems to be later than the extent, for in it Stephanus Clericus recognizes that he holds his land " in lan- seagio," a dependence which has not been admitted in the extent {Cartulary of Ramsey Abbey, i. 411). ' William Hudson, " Three Manorial Extents of the Thirteenth Century," Nor- folk and Norwich Archaeol. Soc, Norfolk Archaeology, xiv. 11,8. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 347 folk unit as they were not by the resident Norfolk population. Accustomed as men of the midlands were to calling the ftdl vil- lein holding a virgate, they not unnaturally persisted in the usage when they came to speak of East Anglia. There are several instances in the Ely cartulary.' Usually it is made clear that the term is merely a substitute for the " plena terra," which turns into a virgate under our eyes. At Derham, as at several other places, the customary tenants who hold plenae terrae (" de operariis plenas terras tenentibus ") are forthwith called virgate- holders.^ That this use of " virgate " was, however, imported rather than native seems conclusive from the usage of two large groups of early documents, records which, drawn up within the county, furnish most of our information regarding early units of land- holding. These are the feet of fines and the Domesday returns. In the fines of midland counties the virgate constantly recurs. In Norfolk and Suffolk, however, an examination of several hundred of the earUest fines reveals the term only in connection with one village, Walsoken, which, situated on the Cambridge- shire border in the fen country, was organized by virgates, hke its midland neighbors.' The Domesday usage is the same: in connection with no East Anglian manor except Walsoken is the term virgate used to designate a villein holding.* ' The Ramsey cartulary also once uses the tenn virgate in connection with the two Norfolk manors, but this happens in a brief summary of all the manors of the abbey in which the attribution of hides and virgates brooks no interruption. Since this summary is contemporary with the detailed thirteenth-century extents which explicitly declare that virgates are unknown in Brancaster and Ringstead, it is obvious that the virgates crept in through hasty cataloguing. " At Brancaster 40 acres make a virgate, 4 virgates make a hide; at Ringstead 30 acres make a virgate, 4 virgates make a hide " {Cartulary of Ramsey Abbey, iii. 213). 2 Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, fif. 221 (Derham), 2336 (Shipham), 209 (Pelham), 248 (Bridgham). ' " De dimidia virgata terre et de tertia parte dimidie virgate terre " (Pedes Finium, Case 154, no. 180, 4 John). * As printed by the Pipe Roll Society, two other fines mention virgates: one from Riston is concerned " de duabus virgatis terrae et dimidia et tribus bovatis terrae (Feel 0} Fines, xvii. 22); the other, from Upton, relates to a dispute between Stephanus de Ludington and Robert le Wile " de i virgata terrae " (ibid., 35). These fines are in all probability wrongly assigned by the Public Record Office cataloguer to Norfolk. They date from the first year of Richard's reign, when 1 3 48 . ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS This peculiarity of nomenclature, this avoidance of the name appropriate to the midland unit, is thus at once early and per- sistent. It points to some fundamental difference between the East Anglian and the midland servile holding, a difference that can hardly have lain in the nature of the services exacted from the respective tenants; for, although East Anghan obUga- tions seem in general to have been lighter than those of the mid- lands, they were similar in kind. May not divergent field systems have been reflected in the usage ? Just as the Kentish unit avoided the midland name because the iugum was essentially unhke the virgate, may not the East Anglian eriung, plena terra, or tenementum have done so for the same reason ? Besides emphasizing the early distinction between midland and East Anghan field systems, the above excursus into nomen- clature has disclosed something about the earhest appearance of the East Anglian unit. A villein holding, the area of which was uniform in a given township, is revealed in the Ely extents of the thirteenth century, where, too, it is nearly always named. It is discernible, though unnamed, in the Ramsey extents of the twelfth century. In the same century, however, the unit some- times assumed the name by which it was later designated at Martham; for in an extent of Stephen's time there is record of a holding of three " ariunges," our earliest specific reference to an East Anglian unit of villein tenure.^ For Domesday is non- committal. Frequently as it speaks of iuga or virgates in other counties, in the description of Norfolk and Suffolk (except at Walsoken) it carefully avoids reference to any units except hides and acres. Since the acres of the survey are never parcelled out to the villeins on a manor, we cannot tell whether there existed in 1086 the unnamed units which had taken form at Ringstead and Brancaster some seventy-five years later. the name of the county is often missing from the fine, as is the case in both these instances. There is another Riston in Yorkshire (a land of bovates) and there are several other Uptons. The Upton in question was probably not far from Luddington, with which Stephen was connected. Of the three Luddingtons in England not one is in or near Norfolk. On the other hand, Luddington in Lincoln- shire is only some twenty miles distant from an Upton in the same county. 1 .Cartulary of Ramsey Abbey, iii. 285. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 349 At this point our evidence fails, leaving us in the twelfth cen- tury with an East Anglian unit of villein tenure which did not exactly resemble either the midland virgate or the Kentish iugum. It was not, like the former, a group of small arable strips divided evenly between two or three fields; nor is it certain that it was always, like the latter, a compact area. At Wymondham a few tenementa were more or less compact, and at Martham several of the strips of an eriung seem to have been not far distant from one another. Yet, as shown by the thirteenth-century survey of the latter township, the large number of strips in the eriung and the probable disparateness of some of them make us hesitate to believe that as a rule the eriung assumed the.iorm of an un- divided parcel of land. Probably it was sometimes compact, sometimes a group of not widely-scattered parcels. At times it resembled the Kentish iugum; at other times it was such a hold- ing as a Kentish tenant would have had after the subdivision of iuga had begun, many of his parcels still lying in the ancestral iugum, while others, which had been acquired, were dispersed throughout neighboring iuga. In what way can such an aspect of the East Anglian eriung or tenementum be explained ? Was this unit afiiliated more with the virgate of the midland system or with the iugum of the Kentish system ? Before answering this question, we must give attention to the intimate connection which existed between the location of the parcels of the tenementum and the pasturage arrangements prevalent in East AngUa, The early custumals, we have noticed, usually record whether a tenant had or had not his own fold (suafalda), whether he might or might not pasture his sheep upon his own fallow acres. It may be that the atten- tion which they give to this matter points to a greater develop- ment of sheep-raising in East Anglia than elsewhere in England; it is more Hkely, however, that it signifies a superiority in agri- culture. Arable fallow was naturally better fertilized when sheep were folded regularly upon it than when the township herd and flock wandered aimlessly over it every second or third year, as they did in the midlands. 3 so ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS But to comprehend East Anglian pasturage arrangements one has to consider another factor than agricultural method, namely, the manor. Throughout the midlands, as Maitland pointed out, manor and township tended to coincide.' Even if there chanced to be two or more manors in a township, they all adapted themselves to the two- or three-field system precisely as did a single comprehensive manor: demesne horses, cattle, and sheep roamed over the waste and over the fallow field along with the beasts of the tenants. In East Anglia, however, the existence of several manors within a township was the rule rather than the exception, a rule, indeed, which tended to be almost universal.^ Furthermore, as we have seen, the manors of a township insisted upon individuality in pasturage arrangements. Except during the autumn and winter seasons, the flock of sheep which each maintained was not allowed to range over the im- sown lands with the flocks belonging to the other manors of the township; it was restricted to its own fold-course, where it en- joyed exclusive privileges. Such particularism, antagonistic as it was to action by the whole township, proved irreconcilable with the practice of the two- and three-field system of tillage.' It thus appears that pasturage arrangements in East Anglia, so far as they had to do with fold-courses, were bound up with the co-existence of two or more manors within a township. If we may assume that fold-courses were as ancient as the manors to which they appertained, it becomes possible to form conjec- tures about the time of their origin. The petty manors of East Anglia are everywhere apparent in Domesday Book.* In that record, too, Norfolk and Suffolk boast of many " commended " (i. e. slightly attached) freemen, to whom may naturally be ' Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 22, 129. * Ibid., p. 23. Miss Davenport notes that in 1086 in the hundred of Depwade, Norfolk, every township with possibly one exception was held of more than one lord {Norfolk Manor, p. 7). ' Whether this particularism in pasturage had any connection with the deter- mination of what constituted a manor in East Anglia cannot be here discussed, but in view of the vexed state of this latter question the consideration of such a possibility is not unworthy of attention. * Of the 659 Domesday manors of Suffolk, 294 are rated at less than one carucate and only 70 at five or more carucates. Cf. Victoria History of Suffolk, i. 369. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 35 1 referred the other feature peciiliar to East Anglian pasturage arrangements — the privilege, namely, of independent foldage. From the character of the Domesday record, therefore, it seems possible to infer that the fold-courses of petty manors and the particularist foldage of certain tenants may have been existent prior to 1086. We may now return to the question of the origin and aflSliation of the eriimg or tenementum. The foregoing digression relative to the pasturage arrangements of East Anglia has served to sug- gest a connection between the agrarian system there developed and the small manors and numerous freemen of pre-Domesday times. May there not also have been a connection between these same manors and the East Anglian unit of villein tenure ? The hypothesis deserves consideration, despite the difficulties which it at once encounters. For two views are current regard- ing the general relationship to the manor of the Anglo-Saxon unit of villein tenure. In the opinion of some writers this unit antedated the manor and represented the original holding of one of the households of a free village community; when the manor was imposed upon this commimity, the holdings suffered change of status, not change of form.^ The contrary opinion is that the persistent xmiformity in the size of these holdings within a town- ship points to a landlord's activity.^ Without discussing this question in its wider bearings, or accepting the latter opinion in the form in which it was stated by Seebohm, we may here note that a fusion of the two views offers a tenable hypothesis relative to the origin of the East AngKan tenementum. This xmit, as has been explained, often in the thirteenth cen- tury assumed the appearance which a Kentish holding took on at some time after the disintegration of the iuga had set in. Assume, now, that there were once in East Angha \mits like the Kentish iuga. Assume that they were divided among heirs and that some of the new tenants acquired parcels in other iuga, as they did in Kent. Assume, finally, that while the new holdings were in this condition a manorial system was imposed upon them. ' Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 337-338. ' Seebohm, English Village Community, pp. 176-178, 419. 352 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS It would be natural for the new lords to desire uniformity of size in the units from which rents and services would henceforth be due. What more natural, then, than that they should discard the antiquated and perhaps forgotten iuga and assess their tenants on the basis of actual holdings ? To equahze the areas of these holdings so as to make them full units or half-units it would only be necessary to shift a few parcels here and there. Some holdings may have been found compact and may have been left so. The outcome of such a readjustment would be tenementa and eriungs like those met with in the thirteenth century. Conjectural as this hypothesis is, it explains more simply than any other the aspect and characteristics of the East Anglian unit of villein tenure. If it be accepted, the tenemen- tum becomes a derivative of the Kentish iugum, the result of an arrest in its disintegration and the making permanent for a time of the stage of dechne then reached. There remains the question whether any unusual event in East AngUan history may have contributed to the break-up of an ancient iugum and perhaps have had something to do with the formation of the manorial system which, in accordance with the foregoing hypothesis, created the new units and the new pasturage arrangements. For answer there must be further resort to conjecture. Domesday Book, as has been noted, shows us that the petty manors and numerous freeholds of East AngUa were in existence earher than 1086. That these features are in no wise to be attributed to the Norman Conquest is apparent from the assumption of the survey that the conditions which it describes go back, in general at least, to the time of the Confessor. Before this date the most pronounced social revolution which Anglo-Saxon East AngUa experienced was the Danish invasion. That the Danes came in sufficient numbers to make permanent settlements is proved by the place-names of the region. To the Danes also is probably to be attributed the larger free element in the population which in 1086 still persisted here, as elsewhere in the Danelaw. In a well-settled area, such as East Anglia undoubtedly was before the coming of the Danes, the intrusion of a considerable THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 353 number of new settlers, who were also conquerors, must have wrought agrarian changes. Foremost among the problems which would naturally arise was that of providing the new-comers with land. One readily surmises that the humbler among the in- vaders became small freeholders, and that the more powerful came into control of many acres along with the tenants already settled thereupon. From the latter appropriation arose the petty manor. Upon the new lords — Danes, or perhaps at times Anglo- Saxons who had profited by disturbed conditions — fell the task of rating the holdings of their new tenants with an eye to uniformity of size within each manor. To them, in short, was due the creation of East Anglian tenementa and eriungs. One naturally asks why incoming Danes brought into existence in East Anglia a unit different in aspect from the virgate and bovate found elsewhere within the Danelaw. The reply is that the midland system of Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire was much the same system as prevailed in Scandinavian countries.^ Danes and Anglo-Saxons agreed in their method of tiUing township fields. Hence when the Danes settled in northeastern England there was no need of a readjustment, either on the part of freemen or on the part of conquerors who may have developed into manorial lords. No difference, there- fore, would in the future be perceptible between the field system of the northern Danelaw and that of Wessex. In East Anglia, however, the Danes probably found a field system divergent, then as later, from that of the midlands. To this they adapted themselves, being without doubt the minority of the population. It was, like their own, a system of open fields, and at the time of their arrival had become one of scattered parcels. In tem- perament and customs they were not hostile to the process of subdivision and dispersion, and they may even have contributed to the disintegration which after the re-rating once more set in throughout East Anglia. But how far the responsibihty for this later movement rests with them is uncertain and does not parti- cularly affect the hj^iothesis sketched above. According to that hypothesis, to state it once more in taking leave of the subject, ' Meitzen, Siedelung und Agrarwesen, i. 22. 354 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the East Anglian field system was in origin similar to the Kentish, but was so modified before the Norman Conquest through the settlement of the Danes and the formation of the manorial system that by the thirteenth century it had developed pasturage arrangements and a unit of villein tenure peculiar to itself. CHAPTER IX The Lower Thames Basin The four counties which lie between East Anglia, Kent, and the circuit of the midland system, together forming what may be called the basin of the lower Thames east of the Chilterns, are Surrey, Middlesex, Hertfordshire, and Essex. To the north this basin is drained by the small rivers Colne, Lea, Roding, and by the coastal streams of Essex; to the south by the Wey and the Mole. For the most part it is sharply bounded by high hills. The Surrey downs stretch from Croyden southwest to Aldershot, while high-lying heath and the forest of Windsor extend north- ward to the Thames. On the northwest and north the Chiltern hills and foothills continue the boundary to the corner of Essex, whence it is no longer upland but the river Stour flowing down to the sea. Although the basin of the lower Thames is not strictly conterminous with the four counties mentioned, it is nearly so. The exclusion of a strip of Surrey on the south and of the edge of Hertfordshire on the north is compensated for by the inclusion of southern Buckinghamshire and a patch of Bedfordshire. The region is practically that which must have been occupied by the East Saxons and Middle Saxons in the sixth century. In its field systems this area differed somewhat from the Kent- ish, East Anglian, and midland districts, but borrowed character- istics from each. The unit of villein tenure was in general not the iugum or the tenementum (although there are interesting exceptions), but the virgate. This midland feature, however, was such in name rather than in reality. The virgates here did not consist, as they did in the midlands, of parcels equally distributed between two or three fields; instead their parcels lay irregularly throughout several furlongs, shots, fields, or crofts. In this ir- regularity they approximated to fifteenth-century Kentish hold- ings and East Anglian tenementa. Although the region was more 356 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS or less homogeneous in these respects, it will be best to present the evidence county by county and then attempt to make certain generalizations. Surrey Arable open field in Surrey persisted until the period of parlia- mentary enclosure, the reporters to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 estimating the total at some 12,000 acres. The largest amount in a single township was the 800 acres at Epsom, while the townships which had more than 350 acres apiece numbered only about a dozen.' Although the open-field arable thus con- stituted no large fraction of a township, parUamentary awards often refer as well to considerable stretches of waste.^ At Ewell, for instance. Slater, following the act of 1801, reports that 1200 acres were enclosed.' The award and map, enrolled in 1803, show the enclosing of down on the south and of common on the north (Chessington common) amounting to some 350 acres, but the arable allotted was not more than 600 acres.* The map fails, as enclosure maps so often do, to indicate the old field names or arrangements. Even were these given, we should be disinclined to accept them as representative of an early field system, since the arable constituted so small a fraction of the township's area. The reporters to the Board make statements which seem to ally Surrey tillage with that of the midlands. In a general way 1 W. James and J. Malcolm, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Surrey (London, 1 794) , pp. 45-50. The reporters' list is as follows : from Carshalton to Sutton and Cheam, 3000 acres; Ewell, 600-700; Epsom, 800; Ashted, 700; Fet- cham, 150; Bookham, 450; East and West Clandon, 300; Merve and Horsehil, 510; Egham, 300; Hythefields, 250; Thorp, 350; Mortlake, Putney, Wandsworth, and Battersea, 1340; Runnymead, 160; Yard Mead and Long Mead, 100; Wey- bridge and Walton meadows, 350; Send Common Broad Meadow, 365; Scotches Common Broad Meadow in Send parish, 50; Send Little Mead, 70. ^ The award and map for Croydon are among the few that have been printed : J. C. Anderson, Plan and Award of the Commissioners appointed to Enclose the Commons of Croydon, Croydon, .1889. ' English Peasantry, p. 301 . * The map reveals the northern half of the township entirely enclosed, while its open field lay compactly in the southern half, stretching toward the downs. Where arable and downs met on the east, another enclosed area of some 200 to 300 acres was marked off as North Loo Farm. The award is in the Public Record Office. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 357 they remark upon the similarity between the open fields of the county and those of other counties, describe the three-course ro- tation, and even mention the tripartite division. ' The conclu- sion of their account, however, shows that they were not at the moment describing what they saw. Mankind has at length, they say, become " more thoughtful and more enlightened," and has " changed somewhat of the mode " of cultivation. The descrip- tion is intended to be historical and general, the reporters assum- ing that the three-field system, which in their day they still saw farther up the Thames, had once prevailed in Surrey. This natural assumption we should likewise make were the earlier evidence in accord with it. Since, however, the testimony of surveys and terriers conflicts with the conjectural but seemingly straightforward account of the reporters, it will have to be given in some detail. Somewhat voluminous is the careful transcription of numerous Surrey terriers drawn up in 1-2 Edward VI and probably re- lating to monastic lands.^ Regarding many townships we learn of little more than the existence of. common fields, the specification being that so many acres lay " in communi campo " or " in com- munibus campis." ' In the longer terriers no holding is evenly divided between two or three comprehensive fields, as would surely have happened several times in the description of an equal ' "According to the common field husbandry of this county [which is similar to that of other counties] . . . very little or no variation could take place; and therefore wheat, barley, and oats have been the uniform routine, and their chief aim has been to get the wheat crop round, be the ground rich or poor, shallow or deep. The custom of each manor in the arable lands for the most part was to lay them in three common fields; and in so doing they were enabled to pursue a course of wheat, barley or oats, and the third remained in fallow. . . . But as mankind became more thoughtful and more enlightened, finding the bad effects of this sort of husbandry, and being precluded the advantage of winter crops; seeing also the absurdity of fallowing, they wisely made an agreement among themselves (wherever they could possibly effect it) and changed somewhat of the mode by the introduc- tion of the artificial grasses " [General View, etc., p. 38). 2 Land Rev., M. B. 190; Treas. of Receipt, M. B. 168, 169. ' Of this nature are terriers relating to West Cheam, West Molesey, East Mole- sey, Esher, Waddington (in Coulsdon), Maiden, Witley, Claygate, Pirbright, Lam- beth, Ashstead, Eashing, Shalford (Land Rev., M. B. 190, ff. 107, 386, 48, 406 and 117, 68i, 170, 1306, 1366, 138, 156, 189, 2256, 226). 3S8 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS number of midland holdings. Parcels are, to be sure, sometimes located in fields, but this is done in the most incidental manner. Several typical terriers in which " fields " are distinguished from furlongs make clear this characteristic.^ 1 At Kingston a leasehold is described as a toft and three roods, " cum vi acris terre arabilis, viz., iii acre iacent in quodam campo vocato le Combefeld in diversis [>arcellis et i alia acra iacet in quodam campo vocato le litlefeld in brokefurlong et i alia acra lacet in eodem campo apud le Chapelstyle et sexta acra lacet in eodem campo in tribus partibus " (Land Rev., M. B. 190, f. 163). At Sutton there was a freehold ** tenementum cum xiii acris terre arabilis eidem tenemento pertinentibus iacentibus in communi campo in diversis locis, viz., iiii acre insimul iacent subtus le halle et iii acre terre insimul iacent in le Russheroede . . . et iii acre [et] dimidia insimul iacent in australi camjx) de Sutton apud Suttonsplott et ii acre [et] dimidia iacent apud le Fowleslowe " (ibid., f. 62b). At Ewell the 6i acres which are appurtenant to a tenement and garden " iacent in diversis particulis in campo vocato Southefeld, unde due acre iacent ex parte occidentali vie ducentis de Swell versus Bansted et alia acra iacet ex parte oriental! vie ducentis de Ewell versus Reigate iuxta Cliillis- busshe alia acra iacet in Estmarkefurlong inter terram . . . et terram . . alia acra iacet in Southelong inter terram . . . et terram . . dimidia acra iacet apud Balardespit sexta acra iacet inter viam regiam ducentem de Ewell versus Reygate . . . et aliam viara ducentem versus Walton " (ibid., f. 91). At Walton-upon-Thames a leasehold of 2 Edward VI consisted of 15^ acres of pasture and woodland and 345 acres of arable. Two-thirds of the arable lay in closes, but loj acres were " in diversis parcellis in lakefield." A freehold in the same township consisted of a tenement at Payneshill, 7 acres in crofts, 5J acres of meadow, and " in communi campo vocato Lakefeld iiii acre et dimidia apud Hokebusshe alie iiii acre i alia acra iuxta le Lalce iii acre et dimidia apud Guldford comer . . . ii alie acre ibidem iii rode abuttantes super Stonyhill " (ibid., f. 736). At Worplesdon a freehold comprised a messuage with if acres adjoining, and '* ii acras terre ibidem iacentes in communi campo vocato le Create Worthe . . . ac dimidiam acram terre in dicto communi campo . . . ac unam acram et dimidiam in communi campo ibidem vocato le Litleworth " (ibid., f. 1706). Another freehold in Worplesdon had " xi acras terre arabilis divisim iacentes in ii"*"" communibus campis ibidem vocatis le Greateworth et le litleworth." In the first lay 10 J acres in five parcels, in the second one half -acre parcel. At Weybridge three fields recur in two copyholds. In the first we hear of a messuage with 5 J " acras terre arabilis divisim iacentes in conmaunibus campis, unde iiii acre iacent in Wodhawfeld et i acra dimidia iacent in le Townefelde ac etiam iiii acre terre iacent in Pircrofte iii! acre terre et pasture in Townegaston ac ii acre et dimidia prati " (ibid., f. 32). THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 359 Only from Kingston have we a terrier which gives such a de- scription of acres as would imply a two- or three-field system; and even here nothing but chance and the smallness of the holding are responsible, since other Kingston terriers mention other fields. At Sutton a South field, it appears, figured beside three equally important nondescripts. At Walton all the acres lay in a single field, Lake field, and at Ewell all were similarly in South field. Worplesdon had, besides its Great Worth, where were most of the acres, its " Litleworth ", contributing to each holding a par- cel or two. Even if, by accepting the doubtful Pyrcrof t, we posit three fields in the Weybridge terriers, we find the acres appor- tioned with no symmetry, Townefeld having fewest in one holding and most in the other. At West Clandon, where again there were three fields, East field received 4^ acres in contrast with 3 acres assigned to Tonge field, if acres to West field, and i| acres to miscellaneous areas. It may be objected that, since all the holdings just mentioned were leasehold and freehold, or, if copyhold, were not estimated in virgates, irregularity in field arrangements might naturally be expected to appear. The objection would be valid were it pos- sible to discover in Surrey any instances of symmetrical arrange- ment against which, as against a background, the foregoing Here only the first two parcels seem to lie in the common field, but the other copy- hold suggests that Pircroft is to some extent common. Appurtenant to a tenement called Hudnetts one finds a small close and " ii acras terre arabOis iacentes in Wodhawfeld iii acras et dimidiam terre arabilis iacentes in campo vocato Pyrcroft iiii acras terre arabilis divisim iacentes in Townefeld " (ibid., f. 356). At West Clandon a freehold tenement has appurtenant three gardens, a croft, and " xi acre terre arabilis quarum iii acre iacent in quodam campo vocato Tongefeld dimidia acra in Northehill ' dimidia acra in Southehill una roda terre in Westfeld una roda in Bassettehawe apud Hordunstile due acre et dimidia in Estfeid super culturam vocatam Northefore dimidia acra in eodem campo vocato Estfeid super culturam vocatam longrowe dimidia acra in eodem campo super culturam vocatam Shuldmere dimidia acra in eodem sui>er culturam vocatam Shelfegate dimidia acra in eodem campo super culturam vocatam Pyrrewe dimidia acra in Westfeld super culturam vocatam Litledean dimidia acra in eodem campo vocato Westfeld super culturam vocatam threyerden dimidia acra in eodem campo super culturam vocatam Westlongland " (ibid., f. 146). 36o ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS terriers stand out as exceptions. Not only do such instances fail to occur in this series of surveys, but four detailed descrip- tions of virgates confirm the evidence just given. Dating from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, these de- scriptions are as satisfactory illustrations of the appearance of Surrey holdings as can be desired.^ Each virgate was appurte- ^ At Epsom the virgate which was held with the tenement called " Synotes " by copy of I Henry VIII comprised, along with two parcels which may have been added: — " i croftam terre vocatam marters et iiii acras terre in Chotley unam acram terre apud Whiteweshill ii acras terre apud Wersdeynsknoll et iii acras terre apud Hadbrought et iiii acras terre in communi campo unam acram iacentem apud Churchefurlong et i acram et dimidiam iacentes in Gorybroke et i acram [et] dimidiam iacentes in Middlefurlong et dimidiam acram apud WerisdenknoU nuper Johanis Hellowes et ii acras terre iacentes in Mysden pertinentes ad nuper officium Coquinari " (Land Rev., M. B, i90,f.6i). At Battersey in. i Edward VI a tenement had appurtenant " dimidiam virgatam terre et prati, unde una acra terre iacet apud Tyethboumehawe . . . due acre contigue iaceat in Longstrete . . et alia acra terre iacet in Croche . . , una acra iacet in Stonyland . . dimidia acra terre iacet in le Grotton . . . ii acre terre iacent separatim in medmeney . . una roda prati iacet in Sladonditch " (ibid , f. i6). In 31 Henry VI the abbot of Chertsey granted to William Frydey at Chobham " unum mesuagium, unum curtilagium cum dimidia virgata terre vocata EjTcy ... in viUenagio . . , unde due acre terre iacent in campo vocato Burifeld inter terram . . . et terram . . . et due acre iacent in campo vocato Beanlonde inter terram , . . et terram . . . et iiii acre iacent in campo vocato Gretestene et due acre iacent in campo vocato lytilstene [two acre-parcels] et una pecla terre continens ii acras iacet apud Estonlanende iuxta campum vocatum Gretestene Et unum pratum . . . et unum pratum . . [no areas] " (Exch. K. R., M. B. 25, f. 2646). In 33 Henry VI the abbot of the same monastery conveyed at Chertsey "unum cotagium et unum curtilagium cum dimidia virgata terra cum suis pertinentibus vocata proutfotes . . . unde predictum cotagium cum curtilagio iacet ibidem in vice vocato Eststrete et tres acre pariter iacent in campo vocato Estfelde in cultura vocata Syllyn . . . et dimidia acra terre iacet ibidem iuxta Coppedeheg' . . . et due acre terre pariter iacent in campo vocato Myllershe . . . et una acra iacet in campo vocato yonder Estworthe . . . et dimidia acra terre iacet in campo vacate heder Estworthe . . . et una acra prati iacet in prato vocato Estmede . . . et una alia acra pratiiacet ibidem *' {ibid., f. 221&). THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 361 nant to a messuage, and hence maintained a household; two were situated in river townships, two in the center of the county; all were in open field, and in all the parcels were largely arable. Yet in none was there any grouping of the strips by fields. At Ep- som a " common field " appears once, but without further speci- fication and on a par with hills and furlongs. At Battersey no fields or even furlongs are mentioned, while the field names are curious. At Chobham we get trace of four "fields," Burifeld, Beanlonde, Gretestene, and Lytilstene; but one of them, Grete- stene, with an adjacent parcel contained half of the holding. At Chertsey the arable was divided among three fields, Estfeld, Myllershe, and Estworth, but in the proportion 3^, 2, and I J. No one of the terriers therefore pictures a three-field system. Intwo grants made by the abbot of Chertsey at East Clandon in II Henry IV we are able not only to follow the description of avirgate but to compare with it the account of a fourth- virgate, or " ferlingata." ^ The virgate was large, containing 13^ acres ^ Exch. K. R., M. B. 25, f. 284. The respective descriptions are as follows: — " Unum mesuagium et unam virgatam terre vocatam Crouchers continentem Triginta quatuor acras et dimidiam terre que William atte Crouche quondam . . . tenuit la villenagio in Estclendone in diversis locis, unde mesuagium et curtilagium lacent per viam Regiam ducentem usque Shure versus Ripplee una crofta et quatuor acre et dimidia terre vocate Clausland iacent . . . due crofte vocate puricroftes continentes tres acras terre iacent . . . due crofte vocate northecroftes continentes sex acras terre mcent . . una roda terre vocata Shamelondesbutte iacet iuxta mesuagium predicti tenement! . . una acra terre iacet in Penstede . . dimidia acra terre iacet in Penstede predicta . . una alia dimidia acra terre iacet in eadem Penstede . . due acre terre vocate Swythecroftes iacent . . . inter . . . halvyncroft . . alia dimidia acra terre iacet in le Haluyngcroft predicto . . . tres rode terre ip,cent in halewjTigcroft predicto . alia dimidia acra terre iacet in le Overshorebrude . . . una acra terre iacet in le Overshorebrude . . una dimidia acra terre iacet in le Overshorebrude inter terrain communem vocatam le Doune ... una alia dimidia acra terre iacet in le Nethereshorebrude . . . alia dimidia acra terre iacet in quodam forlango vocato horeslowe . . . alia dimidia acra terre iacet apud Lytelhegge . . . una acra terre vocata Cowshoteacre iacet . . . tres rode terre iacent apud Longedenesende . una acra terre iacet apud Coppedthorn . . dimidia acra terre iacet sub le Coppedthorn . . . una roda terre vocata le houstedell iacet inter terram vocatam Stonycroft . . . una alia roda terre iacet in Scoldmere . . . una alia roda terre vocata Rokeyerdmele . . . 362 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS in crofts and 21 acres of common land lying in thirty-one parcels. A few of the parcels were in the same field areas — three in Pen- stedCj three in Overshorebrude, two in Halvyngcrof t — but most were disparate and without inclination to group themselves by fields. The ferling, which was about one-fourth as large as the virgate, appears relatively less enclosed. Noteworthy about its parcels was their location in field divisions that are not once named in the description of the virgate. The symmetry and uniformity which might be expected under three-field arrange- ments were thus entirely wanting. Longest of the Chertsey terriers, four of which have just been quoted, are those relative to Egham, which lies on the Thames just east of Windsor Park. In them two virgates and three half-virgates granted by the abbot in 2 Richard III are described in full.^ The length and breadth of the strips are often given, e. g., " i pecia terre in Northcrofte . . . longitudine xxvi perti- cas, latitudine in utraque parte iii perticas, continens dimidiam acram, dimidiam rodam, viii perticas." More comprehensible than a transcript of the holdings is a tabulation showing the parcels arranged by fields and permitting a comparison of the virgates. Each holding includes a messuage, a curtilage, dimidia acra terre iacet apud Thistelford . . . una parva butta terre vocata Pilchebutt* iacet . . dimidia acra terra iacet supra Bradvor . una acra terre iacet in le Stonycroft . . . dimidia acra terre iacet super bradvor . . . tres rode terre iacent super Wowefor . . dimidia acra terre iacet super le Westhulne . una acra terre iacet super le Westhulne una parva pecia terra continent' [sic] unam acram at dimidiam vocatam le Sturtes iacet . . . dimidia acra terre iacet super la Northfor . . . tres rode terre iacent apud Godhume. ..." " Unum toftum at unam ferlingatam terre ... in villenagio . . . continentem saptem acras terra et unam rodam unde predictum Toftum continet unam acram dimidiam terre . . una alia acra terra iacet in Rogersdene . . . una alia acra terre iacet in le Shorebrude . . . una alia acra terre iacet super le Westeshulne . . . una alia acra terre iacet apud le Merk . . . una roda terre iacet apud le Merk predictum . . . dimidia acra terre iacet super le Inlond . . . alia dimidia acra terra iacet super le Middelfor . . . una alia acra terre iacet super longworthe." ' Exch. K. R., M. B. 25, f. 2386. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 363 and a group of strips the areas of which in acres are as fol- lows: — Field Divisions Ermersh Southcroft Northcroft Burgcroft . Hillarshe . . Miscellaneous Virgata Gilberti et Johanis Morcok T i i i 1 *) 2) 4» ?j ij t) 2I ^J i I pecia prati I pecia terre arabilis I, f, 2j (en- 1 closed) I I pecia JapudSidene- hill i§ apud le Swell I pecia iuxta grangiam ij, i unspeci- fied Crof ta inclusai § gravetta ) Pratum and " more " r I pratum, 1 L 3 more J Virgata Matildis de Bakeham Dimidia Virgata WiUiemi at Well de Inglefeld li 4i 1 Medilgrove J Langfur i Shortfer I, 2 (terra et bruerium) a'^ -i^ 4I (terra et 4t, 31 bruerium) if (terra et bruerium) Dimidia Bimidia Virgata Virgata Agnetis Johannis at WeU at Well {1 3 -5 1 81 8 ■* 45 44 2 pre- presture" > if, I U (pas- [ tura) Every holding, it thus appears, comprised several enclosures, but the largest part of each still consisted of parcels intermixed with those of other men. Although the township lies near the Thames and the name Ermersh may suggest marsh land, most of the unenclosed parcels seem to have been arable. Those of the several holdings were very unevenly distributed among the field divisions. The half-virgates had large parcels in Hillarshe, but not so the virgates; one holding had eight parcels in Southcroft, another had five in Northcroft, the others not more than a parcel 364 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS or two apiece in these areas; Burgcroft appears but twice; the first holding had ten parcels in Ermersh, the others only two each. The location of many parcels in " crofts " suggests a subdivision of old enclosures rather than normal open field. Considered together, therefore, the Egham terriers not only fail to evince any trace of a three-field system, but even seem to be prohibitive of such an arrangement. Since complete surveys are always more convincing than ter- riers, any comprehensive evidence of this sort available from Surrey is important. Somewhat late, to be sure, is the descrip- tion of Banstead, which in 1680 pictures little of the township un- enclosed. ' Five of the tenants were then possessed of a few acres vaguely assigned to " the common field," the area of which proves to have been only about 24 acres. The fields may to some ex- tent have been reduced in size, since we find mention of "Upper, Middle, and Lower Common field Closes " ; but it is not clear that they had ever been large. Another survey, earlier by three-quarters of a century, re- cords all the holdings at Byfleet and Bisley.^ Byfleet, a town- ship adjacent to the river Wey, was then entirely enclosed. At Bisley there is note of a few small common fields, the combined area of which was about 100 acres and nearly all of which fell within a dozen copyholds.' Most acres were in Neltrow and Widcroft, a few being in Burcroft. Since in nearly all of the copyholds the enclosed area exceeded in amount that which was open, from an agricultural point of view it mattered little that 1 H. C. M. Lambert, History of Banstead in Surrey (Oxford, 1912), pp. 194-216. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 203, ff. 80-133. ' Their areas in acres may be tabulated as follows: — CustQmaty Unspeci- Common Tenants Enclosed Neltrow Northill Widcroft Southash Burcroft fied Meadow 2I 9 2 I 2i Robt Cobbett, m. . 5 7 .. I Edm. Bonsey .... Martha Lusher, 2 m. iii 3 .. 2} Jo. Symons, m. . . . 2li 2 . . 2 Robt. Cobbett . . . 7i 3 2i Wm. Famham, m. . 10} 9 acres in these three Jo. Hone, m lij 2 2 Henry Lee, m. ... 16} 3 •. 5 Henry Lee, m. ... 2 5 Joseph Hone, m. . . 8 423 Henry Rutter, m. . I4i THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 365 there was no symmetrical distribution of acres among the field divisions. The common fields of Bisley were at this time prob- ably similar to those of many Surrey townships when the formal enclosure of these took place in the eighteenth or nineteenth century. Nor had the Bisley fields changed much during the two centuries preceding the survey, if we may judge from the mention of three of them in an indenture of 6 Henry IV.^ At Bisley, as at Egham and East Clandon, irregular field arrange- ments thus antedated the sixteenth century. Not all sixteenth-century common fields in Surrey were so meagre as those of Banstead or Bisley. A field-book written in a hand of about 1600 describes furlong by furlong all the parcels of open field in "Keyo and West Sheen alias Richmond," the total being some 650 acres. By tabulating and summarizing the information there given, we get what is perhaps our best view of relatively extensive open fields in the county at the period in question. All holdings larger than five acres are noted in a schedule in Appendix VI. The smaller holdings, which averaged about i^ acres and con- sisted of from one to three parcels, numbered nearly thirty. Each of them lay in one division of the township's arable, a characteris- tic not indicative of a midland field system. Nor for the larger holdings was there a general arrangement by fields, the furlongs instead having a substantial importance. After being told about Kew field and Kew heath, we come upon the " lower field," in which there were at least two shots, and possibly more. There- after we are guided upward and southward only by furlongs, since " East field " was no more than a shot. To discover any simple field system governing the distribution of acres is difficult. Kew field was of interest to only three tenants, one of whom had nothing in the Richmond furlongs, and a second but little. If we disregard Kew field and try to arrange the remaining furlongs in ' Exch. K. R., M. B. 25, f. 264. Of the five acres of arable from which tithes were owed by a certain John Willere, " una acra iacet in Campo vocato Northull et una acra et dimidia pariter iacent in Campo vocato Wydecroft et una acra iacet in Campo vocato Eltrowe et una acra et dimidia pariter iacent in Campo vocato Westeworth." 366 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS three groups, the following combination is probably the most feasible : — " The shott butting The Lower- upon the park Upper Dunstable field furlongs west " and Church to Maybush shot (three) furlong inclusive Sir Henry Portman o 3i 8j Will. Portman, Esq [i6|] 24 2?,\ John Burd, iure uxoris {^\\ 2 21 Stephen Pierce, Gent 9I 19J 41I Vincan Jones, Gent 28 30^ 24! — Payne, Gent, iure uxoris 24 295 33J Robt. Clarke, Esq 14^ 10 13! Geo. Charley, Gent S 8| 10 Mary Crome, vidua 6 12^ 11 Lady Wright S z\ 6| Barth. Smith, iure uxoris 2 3J 61 Lott Peerce S i 2 The Church land [2] 2 2! Thos. Smith o 4^ s| In the case of three tenants, Jones, Payne, and Clarke, this group- ing would make a three-field system not altogether impossible, but elsewhere the misfit is complete. Any other arrangement of furlongs, whether by three or four fields, is equally futile. The irregularity of the Richmond field system at the end of the six- teenth century seems pretty clearly demonstrated. From a survey of 1522, earher by three-quarters of a century than that of Bisley or than the Richmond field-book, we have the items which relate to the manor of Merstham.' Although the hold- ings here were tending to accumulate in the hands of a few men, they are still differentiated in the survey. Usually at least half of each lay in open field. When, however, we begin to examine the location of the constituent acres we at once encounter difficulties. For there were no comprehensive fields. The parcels of the larger holdings lay in as many as twenty field areas, often called furlongs, the amounts assigned to each being usually from one-half acre to three acres; ^ and no grouping of these furlongs to form any kind 1 The extracts were copied in 1710 from a " Rentall of the Lordshipps of Mers- tham and Charlewood," and have been printed in Surrey Archaeological Collections, 1907, XX. 94-114. 2 The following holding, though not of the longest, is typical: — THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 367 of system can be other than highly conjectural and inconclusive. It is evident that at Merstham no emphasis was put upon the midland combination of furlongs into three large fields; the fur- longs possessed rather an independence and flexibility which admitted of any arrangement desired. If we turn now to our earliest sources of information regarding Surrey fields, the fines and charters of the thirteenth century, we shall get plenty of evidence that open fields were usual, but none pointing to the existence of a regular field system. Various fines dating from 10 Richard I to 19 Henry III locate the small parcels of the transferred lands in such way as to leave no doubt that open-field strips were in question.' In some terriers, furthermore, the location of strips is instruc- tive. At Walworth a lease of 17 Edward II enumerates twenty parcels containing 2o| acres of arable which lay in EUenebussh, LoKpette, Longewygheth, Fowes, and Southcroft.^ In four in- stances, indeed, it is possible to discover in a measure how the par- cels which constituted a virgate were disposed. At Mitcham a half virgate and six acres are defined as " illam medietatem que ubique iacet in campis de Inlond, Bery, Battesworth, Burforlang, Spirihey, Westbroc, versus umbram . . ." ' At Carshalton ten acres taken from a virgate comprised two acres in Hodicumbe and *' William Holman for a tenement, garden, and croft on the backside called Barkleyes containing by estimation 2 acres and a halfe . . for half an acre in North Deane in the common Feild . . . And for one yard in Swynk Furlong . . And halfe an acre in North Worth . . And for one yard in Towneman Meade ... And 3 yards in Tottbury Bush shott . . And for 2 acres in a peece in Crooked Land . . . And for one acre in Heyforlong . . . And halfe an acre there . . . And for halfe an acre there in Ashtedd . And for another halfe acre there . . . And halfe an acre in Tottbury Hill Furlong . . . And for halfe an acre in Tottbury Bush Shott . . . and for halfe an acre in Little Bosefeild Shott . . . and for one acre in the upper shott in Quarrepittden . . . And for one acre in Great Oate Croft ..." (ibid., 106). ' Such open-field strips are attributable to Camberwell, " Bechom," " Maudon,'' Kingston, and Thorp: Ped. Fin., 225-1-44 (10 Rich. I); 225-2-2 (i John); 225- 3-44 (14 John); 225-4-13 (3 Hen. Ill); 225-4-21 (3 Hen. III). ' MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Lib. B, f. 356. ' Ped. Fin., 225-9^30, 19 Henry III. 368 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS three in Hegecroft, while the others were situated at Stikelehelde, Twiseledeweie, Westhehe, Cwemherst, and Netherathe.^ At Polestede, in a transfer of two virgates, one was described as " aliam virgatam . . . eiusdem Phillippi, scilicet, duas acras terre et dimidiam que iacent versus austrum sub- tus viam que est inter Polestede et losne et duas acras in Westden et in Coster . . . una V acras dimidiam in bromhell versus boreal' unam acram et iii acras in Estden et in MeUierse tertiam partem unius acre et i acram prati et tertiam partem prati subtus polested et capitale mesuagium . . ." ^ Such curious and varied descriptions of the parcels of a virgate indicate that in the thirteenth as well as in the seventeenth cen- tury the open fields of Surrey between the downs and the Thames were not divided into two or three or four large fields among which the acres of a holding were equally distributed. The mid- land system was not in vogue, and the reminiscent history of the reporters to the Board of Agriculture is not sustained by contemporary evidence. The fields were numerous, were curi- ously named, sometimes being called furlongs, and the distri- bution of the acres of a holding among them was irregular. What the afiihations of this unsymmetrical system were can best be discussed after a study of neighboring counties has been made. Before we leave Surrey it should be noted that on the Kentish border a virgate in the early documents does not resemble one which lay in the plain to the north and west of the downs. In the high rolling country between Croydon and Reigate a virgate often seems to have been a more or less compact parcel of land, with no scattering of the acres. At Banstead the 24 acres which were granted from a virgate lay " in Snithescroft." ' At Sander- stead the fourth part of a virgate was " unum campum terre . . . et quinque acre in hadfeld quas Ricardus filius Swein essarta- vit." ^ At Gatton the half of two virgates may perhaps have been slightly more disparate, comprising as it did ' Fed. Fin., 225-3-4, 5 John. 2 ibid., 225-1-41, 10 Rich. I. ' Ibid., 225-2-8, I John. « Ibid., 225-2-15,. i John. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 369 " Sep tern acras terre in Neweland et duas acras terre et dimidiam ad Horscroft et duas acras terre et dimidiam ad Kinerod et dimidiam acram ad Wudappeltre et medietatem curtilagii ... in eadem villa quod vocatur Chapmanhag." ' The existence of compact virgates in this region need not im- ply that there were no cominon fields. A Coulsdon rental of II Henry VII specifies several crofts, "cum aliis terris in com- munibus campis de Wentworth, Churchden, prestyslond." ^ Other documents furnish a clue to the nature of these fields, and any one who has seen the bald chalk downs of the neighborhood can surmise what was their character. In a lease of 9 Henry VI there is mention of " viginti acre terre pariter iacentes in campo vocato Wenteworthe "; ^ and in a Coulsdon charter of 18 Ed- ward II 48I acres of arable are described as lying " in communi campo in loco qui vocatur Toldene iuxta ferthyngdoune." ^ The common fields were, it seems, nothing less than the slopes of the downs, in which parcels were likely to be large; and the very fre- quency with which the fields were named " dene " points to the same conclusion. Fields of such a character in eastern Surrey help to explain the tendency of virgates in that region to Ue in a few parcels, or even in a single parcel. The virgates did, indeed, begin to take on somewhat the aspect of Kentish iuga, with which, as we shall see, they were probably alHed. Hertfordshire What has to the modern student become the typical three-field township of England, is, with no inconsiderable irony, located in a county not characterized by the three-field system. Had See- bohm gone ten miles to the south or to the east he would have found no field arrangements Hke those of Hitchin. For it hap- pens that the long northwestern boundary of the county falls within the midland area and just beyond the hills that bound 1 Ped. Fin., 225-5-25, 8 John. « Exch. K. R., M. B. 25, £. 330. « Ibid., f. 347. * Ibid., f. 336. 370 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the valley of the lower Thames. In consequence there was in Hertfordshire a fringe of townships, of which Hitchin was one, as typically three-field or six-field as anything to the north. In this region it was that the reporter to the Board of Agricul- ture in 1794 noted the persistence of open fields. " The land [of the county] " he says, " is generally inclosed, though there are many small common fields . . . which are cultivated nearly in the same way as inclosed lands; the larger common fields lie toward Cambridgeshire." Almost all of Ashwell he found un- enclosed.' This township, along with Hinxworth and one or two other places, is a projection of Hertfordshire between Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, belonging topographically with the latter counties and like Hitchin falUng within the midland area.^ Adja- cent to Ashwell is Kelshall, a plan of which, made at the end of the eighteenth century, apparently for purposes of enclosure, shows six large open fields stretching northward from the village to the heath, which lay on the Cambridgeshire border.' Not far away, on the northern slope of the hills, lay the manor of Lan- nock in the parish of Weston. Here, too, an early seventeenth- century description of the demesne divides it among three fields in the midland manner.* ^ D. Walker, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Hertfordshire (London, 1794), pp. 48, 52. * A Hinxworth terrier in an early seventeenth-century hand, describing the lands " which Bray holds to Calldecott farme," enumerates them as follows (Add. MS. 33S7S,ff. 46-48): — In the Windmill Field or Clay field 33 acres in 6 parcels In Waller field 11 " "22 « In BenniU field i « « i " In Saltmore field 12% " ** iq " In Blackland field 26i " "52 " This enumeration does not indicate clearly the character of the field system. The township may originally have had two fields, one of which is here represented by Blackland field; or the terrier may be incomplete, since it begins very abruptly; or, once more, the farm which Bray held may have had enclosed lands which per- mitted the irregular distribution of parcels throughout the fields. ' Add. MS. 37055. The fields were Baldock Way, Crouch Hill, Stump Cross, Sibbem Hill, East Little, and Beacon. * After specifying the scitus manerii of 1 7 acres and a woodland of 35 acres, the account continues relative to the arable: " Que quidem terra arabilis dividitur in tribus Seysonibus [the culture being designated]. ... In illo campo quod iacet iuxta THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 37 1 Another projection of Hertfordshire, comprising the townships of Long Marston, Puttenham, Wilston, and Tring, runs into the midland area between Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. The open fields of all these townships except Puttenham were en- closed by an award of 1799.' According to the enclosure map, Long Marston had three fields (Langdale, Mill, and Lolymead) ; Wilston had three, somewhat subdivided, to be sure, but still clearly discernible (Near East and Far East, Bennell, Lince Hill with Blackmoor and Moor Hill); and Tring had seven, appar- ently grouped as Dunsley and Parkhill, Hazely and Gamnill, Hawkwell and Hitchin and Gold. Turning now from the three-field edge of Hertfordshire to the body of the county, what field system do we find ? Evidently one which is irregular in much the same way as that of Surrey. In so far as the holdings of a township lay in open field, the fields were many and there was no symmetry in the distribution of parcels among them. Indeed, at a fairly early date certain townships contained no open field whatever. In 28 Charles II a survey was made of the manor of Hemel Hempstead with its members, Flanden, Eastbrook, Boxhamstead and Bovingdon, a large area in the Chiltern region of the west.'' All the parcels are expressly stated to have been closes, and there is no trace of open field. In an earlier survey of 1607 relating to Berkhamstead and its neighbor Northchurch most of the parcels appear as closes, though a half-dozen common fields are mentioned. Of these the two most often named probably lay in Northchurch, an indication that even at this early date Berkhamstead was al- most, if not quite, enclosed.' If we pass northeastward along the southern slope of the Hert- fordshire hills, we come successively to Little Ayott, Kings Walden, Weston, Clothall, and Ardeley. The appearance of viam que ducit de Sheneffeld versus Wylie et abuttat super boscum de Langenoke . . . [are] ccxxi acre iii Rode et vi acre de novo adquisite. In Seysona de Gravele- feld . . . ciiii"" et v acre et Roda et x perticatas. In Seysona de Duxwellef eld . . . cck acre preter iii perticatas " (Add. MS. 33575, ff. 57-S8). ' K. B. Plea Ro., 45 Geo. Ill, Mich. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 216, ff. 39-70. 3 Ibid., M. B. 36s, ff. 1-25. 372 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS each of these townships is described in sixteenth- or early seven- teenth-century documents, all of theih implying the existence of open fields but never the existence of a two- or three-field sys- tem. At times the amount of open field was very sUght. In 1636 " a coppie of the Survey of Little Ayott " (probably relat- ing to demesne) took account of 83 acres of woodland, 64 acres of park land, and twenty- three closes containing together 329 acres, while in Church field there were but 19 acres in twelve parcels and in Nellwyn field but 24 acres in nineteen parcels. Only one- ninth of the tillable lands here still lay open.^ From Elings Walden the field detail contained in three ter- riers is far more explicit. The latest, dated 1654, rehearses the " particulers of the landes liing in the Common Feildes belonging to the Berry and Parsonage Farme taken out of former notes with some additions";^ another of 1568 relates to all the "copyehold londes of John Camfyld holden of the manor of Kings Waldon "; ' the third is a valuation, in an Ehzabethan hand, of the possessions of Sir WilUam Burgh, knight.* The Burgh estate comprised a manor house, 266 acres of enclosed land, 80 acres of woodland, and " clxx Acres of Arable lande lieing in sondrie peeces in divers fieldes of Kinges Walden, Powles Walden, and PoUetts." These open-field acres (except the ten in Powles Walden and Polletts), together with the parcels of the two other terriers, are shown in the table on the next page. No uniformity is perceptible in these terriers, except in the two larger holdings, which show a preponderance of acres in Mill field. Since in both holdings the acres in question comprised more than one-third of the total but less than one-half, MiU field can hardly have been one of three fields. Especially would its slight representation in Camfyld's holding tell against such an hypothesis, while the location of one-third of this copyhold in Howcroft once more precludes any simple three-field arrange- ment. On the top of the Hertfordshire hills is situated the parish of Weston, the northern slope of which, constituting Lannock ' Add. MS. 33S7S, f. 23. * Ibid., f. 242. ' Ibid., f. 141. 'Ibid.,f. 4. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 373 Location of Common-field Parcels Berry and Parsonage Farm acres in 2 parcels In Hadden field 21 " Hadden dell shott " Mylle field 66 acres in 17 parcels " Royden field 30 " Legates field g\ " Hanger field 2f " Fogman field " Fogman downe iij " Floxmoore field " Wind mill field lof " Wooden 4i " Breadcroft 2j " Landmead downe 6 " How croft " Astyge " Woodden valye " Woodden hyll " Sandy shote Acres of John CamMd's Copyhold 11 10 3 II S 2 4 Sir William Burgh's Estate, 170 Acres 2o| acres 73 3oi 22 S 8 61 I I - t, 9t 2 4j -^J 2j 2) A Two crofts of 3 and 2 acres manor, we have seen disposed in three fields. Weston itself, however, appears to have departed from this arrangement. A mid-seventeenth-century terrier of two tenements of " Mr. Faire- clough his land in Weston " names eleven closes of 74 acres at the beginning of the Hst, seven more of 140 acres at the end, with the following items between: — Frontley Feild: ^^ '^°°^ P"'"^^ A hedge Row o In the upper shott i a peice next weevers mead 13 peace tree pightell i another close more there 3 Woodgate shott 23 Ye corner [5 parcels] Lince Feild: Most part of whitehill furlong 13 in the second furlonge 3 a peice more there S another great peice more there 44 [7 other pieces] 7 Fitks grove shott, the upper shott, neitherdown shott • • \ _ 1 and walkeme shott [= 1025 acres] with 4 other pieces / 2 I 2 17 33 • 44-1-7 3 36 3 1 J 13-2-34 I \ 14 2 ' 73-0-15 2 ' Add. MS. 33S7S, f- 3i7- 374 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Despite the bracketing, this arrangement scarcely bespeaks three fields. Even if " ye corner " be added to Frontley Feild, the sum of the acres is not half so great as the area of the last group. Two other items from Weston seem decisive. In a rental of ii Charles II there is mention inter alia of " Dimidium unius virgate terre vocate Bondsland in a feild called Lince Feild [and] Unum aliud dimidium virgate knowne by the name of Da- viesland iacentis in severall parcells King in Lince Feilde aforesaid." ' Since half-virgates in three-field townships do not usually lie entirely in one field, we must conclude that the township of Weston marks the transition from the midland area, as repre- sented by Lannock manor, to the region of irregular fields. Adjacent to Weston are Clothall and Ardeley, the latter lying farther down on the southern slope. A terrier of the manors of Kingswodebury and Mundens, situated in these two parishes, is dated s Edward VI." The demesne, which lay very largely in Clothall, consisted of 452 acres of " londs, medowez, Fedyngs, wods, and pasture," together with " erable londes in Sheldon felde in the parishe of Clothall 28 acres in 8 parcels erable acres of lond in the Westfield of Clothall" 382 acres in 13 parcels. The manors comprised also " londs in the occupation of Thomas hawez," which with the exception of some 20 acres lay in the par- ish of Ardeley. The Ardeley acres were located indifferently in fields or furlongs, the terms being apparently interchangeable.^ At Clothall and Ardeley, as in the other townships along the sou th- 1 Add. MS. 33S7S. f- 3iS- 2 Add. MS. 33582, ff. 4-9. ' Netherwykdane furlong, i, J, |, J, l acres; Snaylesdel, |; Lodley felde, J, §, i, I. I) Sij ii one pightell; Brokefeld (or furlong), J, 2, one little pightell; Docke- lond, J, 5; Scalfurlong, |, i; Depewellshott, }, i, i; Holmshot furlong, j, J, 5, 5, j; Newellfeld, f; Hoggyswelfurlong, J, i, J; Asthill (furlong or field), i, |, |, |, \ (meadow); Banbery feld, i|, 5, i^; Kybwellfeld, i, J, i; Rybrade, i (a headland); Scotesden furlong, i; Colecrofte, [?]. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 375 ern slope of the Hertfordshire hills, there is thus in the terriers no trace of a three-field grouping. Leaving the hilly townships of the north and passing to the more level region of the southeast, we come upon the large manor of Ware, about which much information is given in a sixteenth- century book of manorial jottings. If from this collection of court rolls, rentals, and incomplete surveys we select three terriers of typical copyholds,^ we shall find that the three had a common interest in Wykfeld only. The first had two acres there, the last four; but the other parcels of their open field lay disparate. Most suggestive of the terriers is the second, in which all the acres except two were in Breckelfeld, a proximity reminiscent of the East AngKan system. 1 " Robertus Forde . . . tenet sibi et heredibus suis . . per copiam datam . . . Anno regni Regis Henrici VIII^^ xxxvi** unum croftum terre vocatum GaUocroft continens . . . quinque acras unam acram terre iacentem in Warefeld inter le borne et salmonscroft et duas acras terre in Abelyingstok et duas acras terre iacentes in Wykfeld subtus wolkechen hedge et unam acram terre iacentem apud waringehowgate et unam acram terre inclusam apud le gravel pytts." " Christoferus wright tenet per copiam curie datam xiii**** die Junii anno secundo Regis Edwardi vi** unum tenementum vocatum Hills iacens et existens in Baldockstrete . . . unam acram terre in Brekelfeld iuxta le Claypitt unam aliam acram terre in eodem campo iuxta Dimsell crosse duas acras terre in eodem campo nuper Thome Peerse . . . tres acras terre in eodem campo abuttantes super le Peertre et duas acras terre in campo sive clausura iuxta wyken lane." The third terrier details the surrender, in 20 Henry VIII, into the hands of the lady of the manor, of ■* unum tenementum cum gardino adiacenti apud werengo hill, decern et octo acras terre arabilis particulariter in diversis locis iacentes, unde quinque Acre iacent in duobus [)eciis in West feild et quatuor acre terre in wykfeld subtus parcum domine et duo crofta insimul iacent et inclusa tenemento predicto Annexata continentia novem acras terre insimul cum tribus acris prati in parco de ware predicto ac tres acras terre in pippeswell field inter terram . . . et terram . . . et unam acram prati in parke meade quondam Johanis Ostwyke . . . unum pratum continens tres acras terre vocatum Sondlese. . . . Ac unam peciam terre continentem quinque acras . . . iacentem apud Goodyerefeld inter Ripariam . . . et terram domine . . . et quinque acras terre vocatas Lokeholme . . . iacentes inter Ripariam et Riponam . . , Necnon decern acras terre subtus parcum domine in Dymershott ac etiam tres acras terre iacentes in wykfeild vocatas Ladymere " (Add. MS. 27976, ff. 676, 896. 47). , 376 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Still farther in the direction of London is Cheshunt, a parish of the Lea valley adjacent to Waltham abbey. Relative to two manors lying mainly in this parish but extending beyond it up and down the river, we have surveys of 19 James 1} In the manor of Periers and Beaumond, reaching into Wormley and Tunford on the north, the larger holdings were leaseholds, and for the most part consisted of parcels of pasture and meadow with a few acres in the common meadows. In the other manors of Theobalds, Crosbrook, and Collins, lying towards Waltham, there was still much open field. Here, too, the larger holdings were held by lease, the copyholders having only messuages with at best bits of land attached. The most important leaseholds are summarized in Appendix VI in a schedule which accounts for all the Cheshunt open field. No fewer than 250 arable acres of the manor were common and unenclosed, while the irregularity of field arrangements is perceptible at a glance. As at Edmonton, which was just down the valley of the Lea in Middlesex, a tenant usually had parcels in two or three fields; ^ but the two or three were seldom the same. No one of them had the prominence which " le Hyde " had at Edmonton, though Holbrooke was favored. Such surveys well illustrate the field situation which was likely to be found just to the north of London at the end of the sixteenth century. If we turn from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century evidence to that of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, we shall find the same line of demarcation in the county. One of the town- ships north of the hills in the Bedfordshire plain is Hexton, where an early charter of Walter de la Ponde bestowed 23 acres of land upon St. Albans abbey. After describing eight parcels which contained 12 acres, the charter gathers under the rubric " Et in alio campo " the remaining twelve or thirteen parcels.' At the time, therefore, Hexton was in two fields, as were several townships in this part of Bedfordshire.* Another Hertfordshire ' Land Rev., M. B. 216, ff. 16-38. '' Cf. below, p. 381, and Appendix VI. ' Cott. MS., Otho D III, f. 1526. At the end of the charter the manuscript is injured. ■• Cf. below, Appendix II. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 377 village situated in the inidland plain appears to have had three fields. In 1297 the demesne lands at Norton were so grouped for a three-course husbandry that the totals by " seasons " amounted to 64, 68^ and 66 acres; ' and the assignment of this demesne to such areas as Westfeld, Neitherwestfeld, and Stoke- feld renders it likely that open field is referred to. At Kensworth, however, which lies on the crest of the hills, the existence of a similar situation at an early time is less credible. A lease from there, dated 1152, provides, to be sure, that on its expiration the lessee " reddit eis [canonicis Sancti PauH] totum bladum Ixx acrarum de hiemaU blado seminatorum et similiter totum bladum Ixx acrarum de vernali blado seminatorum et quatuor xx acras warectetas." ^ There is, however, nothing to show that these acres, which were probably demesne,^ lay in three common fields. Indeed, certain later evidence tells against the existence of such fields at Kensworth; for terriers of several freeholds and copyholds of the time of Henry VII, one of which describes a half-virgate, show no three-field grouping of parcels.* ^ " Ad seysinam unam pertinent in campo qui vocatur Neitherwestfeld xxiv acre terre arabilis et in bokefeld continentur xl acre ad secundam seysinam pertinent in stokefeld xxxvii acre, in Cellenelond XV acre, in Sondishot xiv acre, in Lepescroft ii acre ad tertiam seysinam pertinent in Westfeld xxiii acre, xxxiv acre, i acra, et viii acre " (MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, Lib. I, f. 150). 2 Ibid., Lib. L, W. D. 4, f. 35. ' At so early a date only demesne acres would be leased. ' Of the six larger copyholds three are summarized in the following table (from MSS. of St. Paul's, Press A, Box 62). The fourth description shows that the freeholds were not dissimilar to the copyholds: — " Thomas Albright senior tenet unum mesuagium et xii acras unam rodam terre ac libertatem bosci pertinentem ad dimidiam virgatam terre, iii acras, scilicet, iacentes eidem mesuagio iuxta Basse Croft iii acras abuttantes in dictum Wodgrove iii acras iacentes super Stolckyng hille i acram iacentem apud longemere iii rodas iacentes super le lynches super Stokynghill i acram extendentem ad Croucheway dimidiam acram in eadem cultura abuttantem super eandem viam. " John EUam tenet unum toftum et xxiii acras terre arabilis, [scilicet], X acre iacentes inter terram Thomam Albright et terram . . . vii acras super Blakehill . . vi acras iuxta le Kensworth down. 378 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Of three Hertfordshire townships to the north of the summit of the hills, one thus lay in two fields in the thirteenth century, another probably in three, while the Kensworth evidence stops short with showing us a three-course rotation upon demesne lands. South of the crest of the hills the early evidence changes, two fractional virgates being so described as to imply that parcelling out of virgates among fields was not there usual. A fine of 9 John relative to Wheathamstead transfers " illam quartam par- tem unius virgate terre cum pertinentibus que iacet versus aus- trum et occidentem a via que tendit de molendino de B[atford] usque ad mesuagium ipsius Rogeri." ^ If it be urged that this quarter-virgate may have been demesne, the same objection will not apply to the description of a half-virgate at Tewin. The account is contained in a charter, copied into an early fifteenth- century cartulary of St. Albans, by which " Adam filius Walteri, parsone de Aete, [conveys to] Sanson de tebreg pro homagio et servicio suo dimidiam virgatam terre in thebreg, illam, videlicet, dimidiam virgatam terre que iacet inter terram predicti San- sonis et terram Roberti de thebreg' sub parco de Aiete versus le su . . . Reddendo inde annuatim . . . duos solidos."'' Hom- age, service, and rent imply customary land, and the whole de- scription, like the one preceding, suggests that the plots of land in question were undivided. It should by no means be assumed that all Hertfordshire vir- gates or fractions thereof were at an early time compact areas. " Thomas Aflfrith tenet x acras terre arabilis divisim iacentes in campis de Kenes worth, [scilicet], iv acras apud le Greneway ducens a Kenesworth versus le Down i acram . . . apud Gatepath i acram et dimidiam . . . super Stokynghill . . . super terras Willielrai Flyndey i acram super easdem terras dimidiam acram iacentem iuxta terram domini la Zouche ii acras . . . iuxta terram Johannis Movell dimidiam acram in Crouchedene et est forera et extendit super Croucheway. " George Ingleton tenet [libere] xi et dimidiam acras terre divisim iacentes, imde V acre similiter iacent iuxta le Spitleway iv acre iacent super Aldreht ii acre similiter iacent ibidem dimidia acra iacet in le Galowfurlong." 1 Ped. Fin., 84-7-18. 2 Cott. MS., Jul. D III, £. 64. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 379 On the contrary, one may see how exceptional were the two just described by referring to several early terriers from the Essex border, all of which testify to the existence of intermixed parcels in open field. One of these, from Alswick, describing a half- virgate given in the thirteenth century to the priory of Dunmow, enumerates the acres as follows: — " iv acras iacentes in scalchedelle et dimidiam acram et dimidiam Rodam que iacent [iuxta] terrain Stephani decani in alio campo adversus gravam decani et duas acras et dimidiam Rodam que iacent in eodem campo in duas partes et acram et dimidiam et unam Rodam per se usque ad viam et ii acras dimidiam rodam minus [sic] inter Alwardeshei et Siwineslio iii rodas sub dome yvonis clerici iuxta terram sparche et unam acram in puse croftli et ii acras quae iacent in campo adversus pucheleshei inter terras brici et sparche et iii Rodas que appellantur Hevodacher et ii acras terre quae iacent circa dellam." ' Unmistakable characteristics of open fields are here visible: 175 acres were divided into ten parts, many of them small; two par- cels were in the same field, another lay per se, and another formed a head acre. The parcels of this terrier had, however, been subjected to no two- or three-field arrangement. Although evidence of such a plan might escape us in a single charter, it would scarcely fail to. appear in the numerous terriers that are available. Such records the feet of fines, the cartulary of Waltham abbey, and that of St. John Baptist at Colchester supply in no grudging measure.^ ' Harl. MS. 662, f. 67J. 2 Typical illustrations from each of these sources follow: — At Barkway, in the northeastern hills, Abbot Adam of St. John Baptist's, Col- chester, conceded to Robert le Moine, about 1 200, " mesagium cum una acra terre et dimidiam [sic] iuxta fontem qui uocatur Bedewelle et aliud mesagium . . . cum dimidia acra et tres acras cum prato eiusdem latitudinis extra forum de Berqueia et unam acram et dimidiam penes Bruneslawe et duas acras et dimidiam iuxta Suineslauue et septem acras in Hocfeld et unam acram et dimidiam in campo de Ried et unam acram iuxta Tieuesstrate et octo acras que adjacent ad Tieuesstrate et unam acram et dimidiam super Malmlielle et tres acras que extendunt super Holeuueie et quinque acras in campo de Ried " {Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Johannis Baptists Colccestria, ed. S. A. Moore, Roxburghe Club, 2 vols., i8g7, ii. 630). 380 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Unfortunately, however, virgates are seldom described so fully as they are in the instance just quoted, although the statement that a messuage accompanies the parcels often shows that tenants' holdings are in question. The characteristics of open field — small parcels in several localities and sometimes two parcels in the same furlong — are usually apparent in these terriers. Prac- tically all of them, however, fail to group parcels according to two or three fields. The only item suggesting such a grouping is from Stanstead, where in the thirteenth century thirty arable acres were divided among three fields as follows : — " In campo qui vocatur Alfiadesfelde quindecem acras et in campo qui vocatur Kyngesfelde decern acras et in campo qui vocatur Bokkeberwefeld quinque acras." * Even these acres, it should be noted, were unaccompanied by a messuage and were unequally divided among the fields. Since this is only one of a long series of Stanstead grants, and since all the others apportion their acres unequally among fields, there is At Munden a fine of 15 John enumerates six acres as follows: — " i acram in Netherlee iuxta essartum et ad chevicias illius acre unam rodam et dimidiam et Infra essartum duas acras et i rodam et in Hertwelleschote dimidJam acram et in campo qui vocatur Pucheleslee unam acram et dimidiam . et in eodem campo unam acram et dimidiam et in Buttes unam rodam et dimidiam et in Bradecroft duas acras et dimidiam et ad chevicias de Sewanesfeld unam rodam et in eodem campo de Sewanesfeld tres rodas cum forera et unam acram bosci " (Fed. Fin., 84-7-20). A grant at Stanstead, typical of many that occur in the Waltham cartulary, runs as follows: — " Concessi viginti acras terre mee arabilis in villa de Stanstede, scilicet, duas acras terre et dimidiam cum mesuagio que sunt ex opposite molendini de Stanstede et tres acras et dimidiam super Ketteshell et unam et dimidiam ulterius in eodem campo et ex opposite de Ketteshell ex parte altera duas acras et unam rodam . . . et quinque rodas terre et dimidiam ultra le Newestrate . . . et duas acras et unam rodam ad quercum . . . et duas acras ulterius in eodem campo et unam croftam cum sepibus et fossatis continentem quatuor acras iuxta mesuagium Jordani Partryke . . . et unum mesuagium cum crofta quod vocatur hosgodeshamstall quod continet tres rodas . . . et tres acras prati mei et dimidiam '* (Harl. MS. 4809, f. 146). 1 Harl. MS. 4809, f. 147&. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 38 1 no reason for interpreting the passage as evidence of the existence of a three-field system. Hertfordshire testimony of the thirteenth century thus concurs with that of the sixteenth. Although from the first the county probably had numerous enclosures and considerable woodland, there was doubtless in the more open regions an abundance of open field. This field was, however, irregular in character, the parcels of arable, so far as can be seen, not being grouped by furlongs into two or three large areas. On the contrary, the fields were, as in Surrey, numerous, often curiously named, and pre- sumably small. The origin and affihation of such a field system can best be discussed in connection with similar questions regard- ing the other counties of the lower Thames valley. Middlesex and the Chilterns The western half of Middlesex retained much open field until the period of parliamentary enclosure. Slater's list of acts includes the names of nearly all the townships of this part of the county, and considerable of the area tabulated must have been arable. From the eastern half, however, only two townships figure in his enumeration, Enfield and Edmonton. To the latter the enclosure act assigns 1231 acres, but a Jacobean survey makes it clear that not more than 500 of them can have been arable common field. ^ The 3540 acres mentioned in the Enfield act undoubtedly comprised a certain amount of arable, since the reporter to the Board of Agriculture in 1793 bewails the existence of " a large tract of common field land watered by the New River, at present condemned to lie fallow every third year." ^ The Jacobean survey of Edmonton just mentioned illustrates well the irregular field system of eastern Middlesex. The village lies halfway between London and Waltham abbey in the valley of the Lea, not far from the point where the three counties of Hertfordshire, Middlesex, and Essex meet. Most of the numer- ous tenants held a few acres of customary land, although the • Land Rev., M. B. 220, £E. 110-185. * T. Baird, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Middlesex (London, 1793). P- 36. 382 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS messuages were often freeholds leased by them.' Fully half the township lay in closes, usually pasture land, and many ten- ants had parcels in the common marsh. Over and above the pasture and marsh there was considerable unenclosed arable di- vided into many fields, in most of which three or four tenants had parcels. These fields, numbering about a dozen, seldom con- tained more than twenty acres apiece. Typical of them were Langhedge, Okefeld, Hegfeeld, Dedfeeld, all of which appear in the holdings reproduced in Appendix VI. Only one open-field area, that called " le Hyde," was large and shared in by many tenants. It was quite normal for a tenant to have, along with his enclosed pasture, arable acres in le Hyde and in perhaps one other area, an irregular arrangement which was of course in- compatible with a two- or three-field system. This being the situation in eastern Middlesex, it only remains to inquire whether conditions were similar in the rest of the county. In the west the nearest approach to a three-field arrangement appears at Feltham. This township, situated in the plain of the Thames, on the highway from Staines to Hampton, is described in a survey of 2 James I.'' At that time the fields were three, with names reminiscent of the midlands (Further field. Middle field, Home field), and the copyholds were divided with more or less equality among them. It may well be that this was a town- ship cultivated in the midland manner.' Elsewhere the evidence tells against the creeping of midland habits down the Thames. Cold Kennington, the village that gave its name to the manor which embraced Feltham, had not three fields but two, and in the holdings that are specifically de- scribed (four of the six are not) the division of acres between these ' A dozen of the copyholds have been summarized in Appendix VI. 2 Summaries of the most important copyholds are given in Appendix VI. ' Slater's intimation that three fields were enclosed by the Cowley and Hilling- don enclosure act {English Peasantry, p. 287) should not mislead us. The peti- tion for this act asks that " certain Common Fields called Cowley Field, Church Adcrof t, and Sudcrofts " be divided between the two parishes as well as apportioned anew to the tenants and enclosed. These fields were, therefore, not those of a three-field township, but fields that chanced to be common to two townships. Nor are their names the usual ones for three important fields. Cf. Journal of the House of Commons, 21 Jan., 35 Geo. III. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 383 fields was irregular.^ An Elizabethan terrier of Harleston farm, which was the property of All Souls College and had its open-field lands in Willesdon, after enumerating the closes, proceeds with the open-field parcels, which it locates in seven fields or shots and in two meadows.'' From the thirteenth century, also, the specifications of Middle- sex virgates fail to suggest two or three fields. At East Green- ford a fine of 4 John describes a half-virgate as comprising 9 acres in Lukemere and 3 in the field " toward Bramte," while East field and West field receive only i\ acres each.' At Laleham the fourth of a virgate is assigned in a thirteenth-century transfer to seven localities, four of which were furlongs.* To be sure, the Laleham enclosure map of 1803 dubs the small open field above the village North field and the large one below it South field;' ' The survey is combined with that of Feltham, just referred to (Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 97-98). William Newmann had a messuage, a dose of one acre, and 2 J acres of arable in Court field, 15 j in West field; Anthony Taylor had a messuage, a close of four acres, and 2J acres in Court field, 13 in West field. ^ All Souls MSS., Terrier 32 (1593). The distribution of open-field acres is as follows: — Hungerhill, }, i, J, }, }, i, i, i, J, i, \, i, i, }, i, i, i, li 1= 8} acres] Knowles shoot, \, J, J, \ [= ij acres] Blacklands, |, i, i, i, i [= zi acres] Fortune feild, i, h, i, i, i, 2, li [= 6 acres] The great marshe mead, i, i, }, J, i, J, 2, i, i, \, J, S, J, i, i, I, li [= 9} acres] The little marshe mead, i, i, 3, ^, J [= 6 acres] Brontfeild, J, ., J, i, J, i, i, r, i, i, }, }, I, i, i, li, i, i, {, J, }, }, i, }, J, }, 1, i [= 15} acres] Meesdonn field, ±,h\= i^ acres] Little manicrofts, }, f , I [ = i acre] There is also a map showing the closes and open-field strips of the farm (Typus CoUegii, ii, maps 18-22). 3 " vi acras terre in Lukemere versus occidentem et in eodem campo tres acras versus orjentem et in campo qui se extendit versus bramte [?] duas acras versus astrum et in eodem campo versus ecclesiam iiii particas terre pro i acra versus aquilonem et in Estfeld i acram et dimidiam versus Horsendune et in Westfeld i acram et dimidiam versus eundem Horsendune " (Fed. Fin., 146-2-24). * Ped. Fin., 146-3-22. The distribution is as follows: — " In Langfurland tres perticatas terre ex parte Occidentali et in Middelfurlang dimidiam acram ex parte orientali et in Brocfurlang dimidiam acram ex parte Occidentali et in Retherford dimidiam acram ex parte oriental! et in Brache unam perticatam ex parte orientali et in Shelpe dimidiam acram prati ex parte Occidentali et in Bottefurlang unam perticatam prati ex parte Occidentali." 6 C. P. Rec. Ro., 43 Geo. Ill, Trin. 384 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS but these names must have been merely topographical, since, apart from the divergence in the size of the fields, a township in this fertile region could hardly at any time have been tilled under a two-course rotation. Indeed, we know that in the near-by township of Sutton, held by the canons of St. Paul's, the three- course rotation usual on the demesnes of their manors was early employed. 1 It is probable that the Sutton demesne was unen- closed,^ although the names of the divisions in which it lay, as well as the area assigned to each, preclude the midland system of two or three large fields.' Thus the earlier Middlesex evidence is in conflict with that of the Jacobean survey of Feltham, the three seventeenth-century fields of which township must have been exceptional. If it be true that the midland field system did appear in the Middlesex plain, there is no doubt that the manifestations of it there were isolated from the midland area by the interposition of a different system, one which followed the Chilterns to the Thames and crossed it east of Reading. For the evidence from this Chiltern region regarding irregular fields is full and con- vincing. If we follow the river up from Windsor into the mid- land plain, we shall in so doing have an opportunity to observe Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire townships on the one hand and those of Berkshire on the other. The Buckinghamshire reporters to the Board of Agriculture stated that the occupiers of the common fields of Horton (500 acres), Wraysbury (200 acres), Dachet (750 acres), Upton (1500 acres), Eton (300 acres), and Dorney (600 acres), all townships lying near Eton, " have exploded entirely the old usage of two crops and a fallow and have a crop every year." ^ May not this deviation in 1794 from the three-course rotation which prevailed ' A lease of 1283 specifies that 44 acres were sown with com and 18 with rye or mixtilion, 60 with oats and 12 with barley, while 64 lay fallow (MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, Lib. I, f. 24). * A measurement of 1 299 attributes its acres to various quarentenes (ibid., f . 336) . ' There were in all 90 acres in Suthfeld, 47 in Breche, 9 in Hamstal, 36 in Est- feld, 9 in Northfeld, 66 in Westfeld, 22 in Eldefeld (ibid., f. a). * W. James and J. Malcolm, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Buckingham (London, 1794), p. 27. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 385 elsewhere in the county have been facilitated by the existence of fields already irregular ? The reporters do not tell us when the change took place, but it may have been long before they wrote. Most instructive in showing the character of Buckinghamshire open fields in this region is a survey of Farnham Royal made in 6 James I. Although by far the greater part of the manor was enclosed, some 250 acres of unenclosed field are described.' While there were four recurring common fields, the system was by no means a four-field one, nor was it even reminiscent of two fields. The acres were unequally apportioned, Hawthorne field receiving most of them and any field being liable to neglect. If in the eighteenth century the fields of all the townships round Eton were like those of Farnham two centuries before, transition from a three-course husbandry was invited by the location of the ten- ants' acres. Ascending the Thames past Henley, we come into the small plain about Reading, where the valley widens just east of the main ridge of the Chilterns. Regarding sixteenth-century fields here we are instructed by two useful surveys of townships within five miles of Reading — those relating to Sonning, Berkshire, and Caversham, Oxfordshire. Since the Sonning survey is arranged according to three tithings, the tenants and fields of which differ, we have in it, so far as tillage is concerned, the record of three independent townships.^ The tithing of Okingham was practically enclosed.' A yard-land there usually consisted of some twenty enclosed acres, for the most part arable. At times there were from two to four acres in an open field, but such fields are too insignificant to merit at- tention. More open was the tithing of Wynnershe, several of the copyholds of which have been summarized in Appendix VI. Occasionally yard-lands were here enclosed (e. g., those of Agnes Astell and Robert Phillipps), but most of them had con- siderable arable and some meadow in the fields. This arable, ' The holdings which contain most of it are transcribed in Appendix VI. * The tenants of the several tithings have rights of pasture in the same commons. ' Land Rev., M. B. 202, £E. 74-82. 386 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS apart from a few outlying acres, was disposed within a group of three fields (Demys, Whetershe, Benhams) or, if not in these, within another group of four (Stony, Goswell, Old Orchard, Rudges). Whichever group, however, a yard-land favored, among the fields themselves there was no equal apportionment of acres. If a three-field system employing six fields had ever been in force, here it had fallen into decay, a supposition which the presence of numerous enclosures renders not incredible. The third tithing, the one called by the parish name of Sonning, was not unlike Wynnershe.i Although at times a holding there was enclosed (e. g. the half yard-land of John Gregory), most of the cultivated land lay in open field. Of the four fields which most often recur, to the one called Bulmershe there was seldom assigned more than an acre, whereas Charfielde frequently received a greater mmiber of acres than did all the remaining fields together. A three-field system can hardly have been constructed on such foimdations. Across the river from Sonning is Caversham, which the survey of 5 Edward VI pictures as already largely enclosed. The vir- gate holdings in this township show that frequently not more than between one-fifth and one-tenth of a tenant's land lay in the open fields.! Yet the fields were numerous, a dozen of them being mentioned and a half-dozen often recurring. Usually a holding had its acres in only three or four of them, and then with no regularity. Small fields which, like these, played so slight a part in the economy of a township could easily depart from any systematic cultivation without inconvenience to their tenants, and apparently those at Caversham had done so. If a three-field or a six-field arrangement ever existed there, it had disappeared before the middle of the sixteenth century. Passing farther up the Thames, we reach the outposts of the region of irregular fields. These lay in Oxfordshire, either on the northwestern slopes of the Chilterns or in the bottom lands below. Watlington and Ewehn represent the former, Warbor- ough and Bensington the latter. Typical holdings from Jacobean surveys of each of these four townships, which are situated near ' Illustrative holdings are given in Appendix VI. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 387 one another, are summarized in Appendix VI. In all four open field largely predominated. The number of fields, however, varied from township to township, and the acres held by indi- vidual tenants were nowhere evenly divided among the fields. Ewelm perhaps approached most closely to the midland arrange- ment. Three open fields. Grove, Middle, and Church, frequently recur, and in three or four instances the tripartite division of the open-field acres of a holding was nearly achieved. In many cases, however, one or more of these fields are disregarded, while as many as a dozen others are mentioned. At both WatUngton and Bensington there were about a dozen fields, in from one to seven of which the acres of a tenant might lie. No group of three fields stood prominently forth in either township, nor can a six- field arrangement be discovered. The fourth of the townships, Warborough, did to be sure, have six fields; but here too, if we try to combine any three with any other three, we shall get such improbable apportionments of tenants' acres as 4, 15, 85. Since there are several such inequalities for each equitable division, we are forced to consider the open fields intractable like those of the other townships. It may be added that nineteenth-century enclosure plans and awards concerned with these four places evince no regularity in field arrangements. To judge, then, from all the instances noticed above, it seems probable that the irregu- lar fields of Surrey and Middlesex extended into the Chiltern region of the three counties to the west, and came to an end only when they reached the plain of southeastern Oxfordshire. Essex The early field system of few EngUsh counties is so difficult to describe as that of Essex. At the time when records of it were first made, much of the county was already enclosed. The earliest evidence thus assumes peculiar importance, but since it is of a fragmentary nature it forbids any but tentative conclusions. Like Kent, Essex was referred to in the sixteenth century as one of those counties " wheare most Inclosures be." ' A descriptive - John Hales, A Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England (1549, ed. E. Lamond, Cambridge, 1893), p. 49. 388 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS rental of St. Paul's manor of Heybridge in 1675, and a plan of New College's manor of Homechurch Hall in 1662, show closes only,' and so do various accounts of late sixteenth-century conditions. A two-hundred-page survey of Westham, a short one of the manor of Lawford Hall, an excellent one of East- wood Bury, a plan of four " tenements " in Woodham Ferrers, describe enclosures.'' From the times of Henry VIH and Ed- ward IV we hear principally of crofts in a detailed rental of Rivenhall, in the fragment of a survey of Sandon, in extracts from the court rolls of Crepinghall, in a description of tenants' hold- ings at Newhall in Boreham, and in a full account of the manor of Wikes.' Finally, fourteenth- and fifteenth-century terriers of the lands of various chantries at Colchester seem to be concerned mainly if not altogether with enclosures.^ Such evidence might raise the question, as it did in Kent, whether common arable fields ever existed, and the topography of the county might suggest that Essex was isolated from its western neighbors by stretches of forest through which open-field usages never found their way. It is true in a measure that the western boundary of the county was reinforced by tracts of for- est. Toward Hertfordshire lay Hatfield Chase, toward Middle- sex the wider reach of Epping. These forests, however, seem not to have acted as barriers to colonization or communication. To judge from the frequency with which Domesday hamlets were scattered throughout them, their settlement was not long de- layed; ^ and the numerous possessions of Waltham abbey within the bounds of Epping at an early period indicate that communica- tion with the home manor to the west cannot have been difficult. There is thus no topographical reason why western Essex should ' MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, Press A, Box 62; Rawl. MS. B311. ' Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 425, flF. 1-113, 3 Jas. I; Add. MS. 34649, i Jas.; Rawl. MS. B 308, 8 Eliz.; Harl. MS. 6697, ff. 20-24, 21 Eliz. ' Rents, and Survs., Portf. 2/44, 7/47; ibid., Ro. 196, 3 Edw. IV; Treas. of Receipt, M. B. 163, f. 47. * Philip Morant, History and Antiquities of the County of Essex (2 vols., Chelms- ford, 1816), i. 150-158. ' See the Domesday map in Victoria History of Essex, i. 426-427; also W. R. Fisher, The Forest of Essex, London, 1887. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 389 have been isolated from Hertfordshire and Middlesex in its field systems. Nor does it seem to have been. The dividing line in field usages, passed through the county rather than along the border, and set apart the northwest as a region indistinguishable from Hertfordshire in the aspect of its open fields. In the central and southeastern part of the county, however, different arrange- ments and possibly Kentish affinities are perceptible. The northwest is a continuation of the Hertfordshire highlands, that here form part of the boundary of the midland plain. In Essex the river Cam, flowing northward, issues from the Mils, which are noticeably lower than in Hertfordshire. From both the valley and the hill region we have several terriers that agree in demonstrating the prevalence of open fields in this part of the county. In every way these fields were similar to those of Hert- fordshire, and especially noteworthy is the fact that the numer- ous parcels of a holding were never grouped as if lying in two or three large arable areas. In some terriers the parcels were seldom larger than an acre and were widely dispersed throughout the fields. At Wenden, for example, the six acres which in 8 John formed part of a virgate were located in twelve places.^ At other times several parcels fell within one of the open-field divisions, the names of which were of the most varied sort, often being reminiscent of hill and woodland. Fifteen acres at Arkesden which were given to the monks at Walden early in the fourteenth century are illustrative of conditions in the district. The twenty parcels were located as follows, the areas being in acres : — " in campo qui vocatur Newey, i, \ " in campo qui vocatur Mapeldeneswell, ij, | "in campo qui vocatur Apostolgrove, 2, |, 5 " in campo qui vocatur Witedune, f " in campo qui vocatur Blakedune, f, |, J, 5, |, f " in campo qui vocatur Stockyng, i " in campo qui vocatur Burgatesshot, i " in campo qui vocatur Sevenacres, | " in campo qui vocatur Langeland, |, 5 " in campo qui vocatur Wyndemelnessot, {." ' ' Feet of Fines for Essex (ed. R. E. G. Kirk, Essex Archaeol. Soc, 1899, etc.), i. 37 (no. 197). ' Harl. MS. 3697, f. 143J. 390 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Elsewhere the parcels were larger, and might seem to have been closes were it not that the field names and the assignment of more than one parcel to the same field division reassure us. A list of such parcels in the following terrier is illustrative of some sixty pages of similar matter in the Walden cartulary, and es- tablishes the existence of open fields at Saffron Walden, in the upper valley of the Cam : — " due acre in Benepistel sex acre et una roda quarum unum caput extendit super manlond . . . due acre super Sortegravehill . . . due acre super Sortegravehill que vocantur le Gorey . . . una acra et tres rode in eodem campo tres acre et una roda super Putemannesdole tres acre et una roda et quarta pars unius rode in Goredlond septem acre et tres rode in Middelsot dimidia acra ex opposito Eustachii de Broc una acra ... in eodem campo." ' The Dunmow cartulary takes us a little farther toward the center of the county and fixes the probable Umit of open field. There can, for instance, be no doubt about its existence at Hen- ham, where ten acres were disposed in seven parcels among various field divisions.^ At Henham, too, we hear of " totam dalam terre . . . que iacet apud le' 'helz de Rokey inter terram Radulfi Rafur et terram Galfridi Dolling. Et dalam illam in eodem campo inter terram Arnulfi et Rogeri le hog." ' These dales recall the open fields of northern England, and in the guise of " doles " recur elsewhere in this region. ^ Just to the west of Henham a fine of 40 Henry III locates sixteen acres at Manewden in nine parcels.^ Other instances of scattered parcels hereabouts are available, but perhaps enough have been adduced to show 1 Harl. MS. 3697, £. 89*. ' Harl. MS. 662, f. 596. The acres were distributed as follows: — 3i in Bennvelehe i in Hofeld i in vidande 3 in Coperdenefeld I J in Cockesdenefeld I in crofto meo » Ibid., {. s86. ' Land in Alsewic, Herts, is specified as seven doles, each separately described (ibid., f. ii6). At Middleton one of the parcels in a holding was in the fourteenth century described as one " dole terre continens i acram que vocatur Sheppelond in Sturfeld (Rents, and Survs., Portf. 25/17). ' Kirk, Essex Fines, i. 216 (no. 1286). THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 39 1 that there can be no hesitation in assigning this corner of the county to the province of open field. Its open fields, however, were not of the midland type, but resembled those of Hertford- shire. So far as can be seen, parcels were not arranged with a view to a two- or three-course husbandry accompanied by pas- turage of the fallow. The terminations dene, dune {done), and lee suggest, further, furlongs in a woodland area; and it is possible that a township's arable arose from the continued assarting of the waste, with an adaptation, but no adoption, of midland arrangements. Throughout all of the county except the northwestern corner traces of open-field husbandry are slight. Seldom, even in the early fines or charters, do we meet with the series of small parcels which betray the presence of intermixed arable strips. Since these fines are both numerous and specific and do not fail to ascribe small parcels to the northwest,' their failure to record similar phenomena in the remainder of the county becomes a telling negative argument against the existence of open arable fields there. Later Essex surveys and terriers have the objectionable habit of merely reciting the parcels of the tenants' holdings without grouping or describing them in any way. The sixteenth-century documents referred to at the beginning of this chapter are useful in that they go so far as to indicate which parcels were closes. What we should hke to know, however, is the character and ap- pearance of the primitive villein holding. Inspection of the fines and extents reveals the fact that the Essex unit was often the virgate or yardland.^ It appears as such on three of St. Paul's manors in 1222,' and on many Waltham manors tenants held virgates.^ There were at Bocking in the thirteenth century 225 virgates, 10 " forlands," and 7 half-forlands, each forland doing ' CI., in addition to instances already cited, 6 acres in 13 parcels at Heydon, and Sj acres in 4 parcels at Birchanger (Kirk, Essex Fines, i. 41, 61, 9 John, no. 228, and 6 Hen. Ill, no. 91). 2 Ibid., 9 sq. passim. ' Beauchamp, Wickham, Tidwoldington: W. H. Hale, Domesday of St. Paul's, Camden Soc, 1858, pp. 27, 33, 52. - E.g.,Woodford,Nettleswell(i3th century): Cott.MS.,Tiber.CIX,£f. 2056-210. 392 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS one-fourth as many days' week-work as a virgate.' Virgates are also found at Berneston in 13 Henry VI and at Felsted Bury in 41 Edward III.'' Sometimes, however, the villein unit took less committal names. At Hadley there were 22^ "terre," and 6 " moneday londs," the services from each being given in detail.' Lalling, described in the same series, had 12^ " terre " from which villein services were due.^ Elsewhere no name whatever is given to the imit; in the thirteenth-century enumeration of services due at Borley, for example, we find merely " de singulis xx acris terre." » Although information to the effect that the virgate or a corres- ponding unit was the standard villein holding can be deduced from the extents and from Domesday,' it is impossible to discover from them or from other documents hitherto cited what was the aspect of the virgate. For that reason the later descriptions contained in a Jacobean survey are of importance. The survey in question describes the large manor of Barking in southwestern Essex, not far from London. Although for the most part it neg- lects to group the acres of its holdings in any way, there are happy exceptions, of which the three following descriptions are typical : — " Idem Johanis [Trewlove] similiter tenet unam virgatam terre custmumarie et heriottaHs vocatam Coryes . . . iacentem ex parte orientali de le Yy\t Ehnes in Daggenham cvim vi denariis redditus annuatim percipiendis de una crofta terre vocata Whites continente per estimationem iii acras que nuper fuit par- cella predicte virgate terre; de qua quidem virgata terre quatuor clausa continent per estimationem xii acras terre arabilis insimul iacentia inter terram . . . et tres alia clausa residuum predicte virgate . . . continent per estimationem vii acras terre arabilis 1 MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Lib. B, ff. 1156, 1326. 2 Rents, and Survs., D. of Lane. Portf. 2/5; ibid., Ro. 188. ' Add. MS. 6160, f. 68 (early 14th century). * Ibid., f. 69. ' MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Lib. B, f. 143. « e. g., at Homdon, Liston, Creping Hall, East Donyland, etc.: Victoria History of Essex, i. 560-566. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 393 et iiii acras bosci et insitnul iacent super terrain Jacobi Har- vey. . . . " Thomas Humfrey tenet sibi et heredibus suis per copiam . . . unam virgatam terre custumarie et heriottalis vocatam long- yerd . . . continentem per estimationem vii acras terre arabilis et septem acras bosci abuttantes super Blackhethe versus bo- riam et venellam ducentem a le kings highway versus . . . et terram nuper Thome Pruey . . . versus Austrum et terram Josephi Haynes armigeri versus boriam. . . . " Johannes Pragle tenet per copiam . . . unam virgatam terre . . . vocatam Beesdown ab antiquo Roughlands continentem per estimationem Novemdecim Acras terre arabiUs iacentem in pa- rochia de Dagenham abuttantem super terram liberam predicti Johanis versus occidentem et terram nuper Thome Cowper vo- catam Sawgors versus boriam et terram Roberti Scott generosi et terram pertinentem le Almeshouse de Romford versus occi- dentem." 1 Two of the above virgates consisted of arable and woodland, the third of arable only. While the first of the three comprised two groups of closes probably separate, the others were compact areas, and, though nothing is said about their being enclosed, such was without doubt their condition. The nature of the virgate of southwestern Essex at the end of the sixteenth century thus becomes apparent. It was sometimes, at least, a compact area usually divided into closes of arable and woodland. The testimony of earher documents confirms that of the Bark- ing survey. A glebe terrier at Kelvedon declared in 1356 that the vicar should " have 62 acres of arable land whereof 52 acres lie together near the aforesaid mansion in one field called the Churchfield with the hedge adjoining, and nine acres in a field called Lyndeland as enclosed with hedges and ditches." ^ Most important of the early documents, however, are the feet of fines. After 1235, to be sure, they rarely mention virgates, but the fol- lowing descriptions are informing. At Dunmow, which was near the open-field part of the county, the fourth of a virgate was 1 Land Rev., M. B. 214, ff. 285, 312, 318. ^ Essex Archaeol. Soc, Trans., new series, 1911, xi. 7. 394 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS specified in 3 Henry III as one-half of a messuage, " with the field called Wudelehe, and with a moiety of Smithescroft." ' At Laver, in 5 John, the half of a virgate consisted of " all the land which Kes between Bredenewell and the wood towards the west, and 3 acres of land which lie between the road (cheminum) of the same town and the wood towards the north." '' Lastly, at Havering in the southwest 50 acres were in 15 John taken from one and one-half virgates and located in such a way as to be- speak complete enclosure.' Thirteenth- as well as sixteenth-century accounts of Essex vir- gates thus describe them as being largely consolidated; nowhere, except in the northwestern part of the county were they com- posed of small scattered parcels. Mention of them in the fines and charters becomes so infrequent after the first quarter of the thirteenth century as to render generalization somewhat unsafe, but the evidence at hand points unanimously and unmistakably to the largely consolidated virgate as characteristic of much of the county. The case is strengthened by the descriptions of nvuner- ous holdings which were not virgates. These, too, were composed, not of small scattered strips, but of larger areas which may have been Kttle separated. Certainly the impression carried away from a perusal of the Essex fines is very different from that given by the fines of most other English counties. One feels that they resemble rather closely the equally unusual fines of Kent. If, whether in terrier or survey, we trust to the appearance of the virgate holdings or even to the aspect of holdings of any sort, we shall be inclined to ally the greater part of Essex with its southern neighbor in respect to its field arrangements. ' Kirk, Essex Fines, i. 52 (no. 29). ^ Ibid., i. 32 (no. 146). ' Ibid., i. 46 (no. 257).' The locations were as follows: — 2 acres in the croft called Hamstall 18 acres in the croft called Nortfeld 5 acres in the croft called Laiacre II acres in the croft called Phistelcroft 5 acres in the croft called Brigfeld g acres in the croft called La Dune. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 395 Conclusion Before summarizing the results of this chapter we may profit- ably give a little attention to another group of early sources which has elsewhere been of some value in determining the char- acter of early field systems. This is the series of extents con- tained in the inquisitions post mortem. By explaining whether the acres of demesne lands lay one-half or one-third fallow and in common, these extents have heretofore supplemented the evi- dence got by locating in the fields the parcels of the holdings.' Fourteenth-century records of this kind from the midland coun- ties have frequently assured us that the demesne was thus fallow and common; others from East Anglia, while they have revealed the same three-course rotation as prevailed on conmion lands in the sixteenth century, have not forced us to conclude that a three- field system was existent at the earher period any more than at the later one, when, as we know, it did not prevail. Kentish ex- tents, on the other hand, have in our examination of them not admitted the possibility that demesne lands in Kent ever lay one- third fallow and in common. If, as occasionally happens, one- third of them are said to have lain fallow, the value put upon the pasturage of these shows that during the fallow season they were not open to conamon use.'' Furthermore, we have found Kentish demesne sown yearly and valued as high as 12 d. the acre, an undoubted indication of superior agriculture. It is time now to inquire whether any information, relative either to improved tillage of the demesne or to the distribution of demesne acres between two or three common fields, is available from the extents of the counties of the lower Thames valley. Al- though, like the other documents from this region, these extents are annoyingly noncommittal, those of the decade 7-16 Edward III, which have hitherto been referred to, give testimony of a general character. In the first place, it is noteworthy that the ' Cf. above, p. 46, pp. 301-302. 2 " Sunt ibidem ciii'" acre terre arabilis que valent per annum quando seminan- tur iiii li. pretium acre vid. et quando non seminantur pastura cuiuslibet acre valet ii d. De quibus seminabantur ante mortem predicti Willielmi de semine yemali et quadrigesimali v"x acre " (C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 65 (11), Throwley). 396 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS highly-valued demesne acres of Kent nowhere appear. Valua- tions of the arable do not differ particularly from those of the midlands or of East AngUa, but range, like them, from /^d. to ?>d. the acre. In the second place, statements, usual in the midland or East Anglian extents, to the effect that one-half or one-third of the demesne acres were without value because each year they lay fallow and in common, seldom occur in similar documents from the counties of the lower Thames. Surrey furnishes no such declarations in the extents of the decade referred to; Middlesex contributes the curious information that one-third of certain de- mesne acres were intermixed fallow and yet retained a consider- able value; ' the Hertfordshire instances, of which there are four, relate to townships near the northern border of the county ;2 and in the numerous Essex extents only once does the phrase charac- teristic of the midlands occur.' Not that there are in the extents of the decade in question no other traces of common usages or of the three-course rotation of crops. On the contrary, demesne acres are sometimes said to lie in common from the end of harvest till January,^ and a three-course rotation was at times practiced ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 66 (32), Parva Greenford: " Sunt ibidem vi=" acre terre pretium cuiuslibet acre de iiii" iiii d. et residue xxxx acre iacent frisce inter friscas aliorum hominum que valent per annum quelibet acra ii d." ^ Ibid., F. 42 (18), Offley: " Et residuum predicte terre, viz., cc acre iacent in communi et valent per annum quum seminantur xxxxis. viiid. . . . et quum non seminantur nihil valent per annum quia per totum annum iacent in communi." Ibid., F. 52 (7), Berkhamstead : " Sunt ibidem ccc acre terre arabilis quarum duo partes seminabantur ante mortem predicte Johannis et tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in communi . . . et quando non seminatur nihil valet quia iacet in communi." Ibid., F. 64 (20), Reed: " Sunt ibidem c acre terre arabilis que valent per annum XXX s. iiiid. ... Et inde seminantur ante mortem predicti Thome iii"x acre et residuum iacet in communi." Ibid., F. 64 (20), Widdiall: " Sunt ibidem ccc acre terre quarum cc valent per annum btvis. viiid. ... Et inde seminabantur hoc anno semine yemali et quad- ragesimali cxxxx acre. Et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi." ' Ibid., F. 61 (10), Tolleshunt: " Sunt ibidem cciiii'^v acre terre arabilis de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum et tunc valet acra per annum quando seminatur iiiid. . . . et totum residuum nihil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in communi per totum annum." * Ibid., F. 38 (i), Moulsey, Surrey: " Sunt Ix acre terre arabilis que valent per annum xxs. . . . et non plus quia iacent in communi a festo sancti Petri ad vinculos usque ad festum Purificationis beate Marie." THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 397 upon enclosed demesne.^ Of evidence, however, which proves the practice of three-course husbandry upon demesne acres lying in common fields there is only the brief amount just cited. Apart from the testimony of four townships in northern Hertfordshire and of one in Essex, we have from a considerable body Of extents no suggestion that a three-field system prevailed in the counties of the lower Thames. As to these exceptions, the Hertfordshire townships, lying as they do on the borderland of the midland area, may well have adopted midland husbandry without coming to be in any way abnormal phenomena. The Essex instance, however, is more diflScult of explanation. Tolleshunt is situated, not in northwestern Essex on the edge of the midlands, where three fields might be expected, but in the eastern part of the county near the coast. The state- ment, then, that one-third of the demesne lay fallow and com- mon there seems to import into the region the usages that lay behind similar statements in Norfolk and Suffolk extents. In those counties, as we have seen, a three-course rotation of crops on common fields did not, either in the sixteenth century or in the fourteenth, necessarily imply a three-field system. The same may have been true of Tolleshunt, and the field arrangements there may have been like those with which we have become f ami- Uar at Weasenham in Norfolk.^ Forms of tillage other than a three-course rotation of crops were also known in fourteenth-century Essex. At Chingford, in 12 Edward IH, 240 acres from a total demesne of 260 acres were sown;' at Newport and at "Lachlegh" during the same decade ' C. Inq. p. Mort. Edw. Ill, F. 66 (27), Bennington, Herts: " Sunt ibidem ccc acre terre arabilis quarum due partes seminari possunt per annum. Et valent si seminantur be s. viiii d. pretium acre iiii d. Et quando non seminantur pastura eorum duarum partium valet per annum xvi s. viii d. pretium acre i d. et non plus quia terra ilia est valde petrosa et inde male herbata. Et dicimt quod due partes seminabantur ante mortem dicti Petrum. Sed tertia pars, viz., c acre de predicta terra iacent ad warectam que valet per annum viii s. iiii d. pretium acre i d." ^ CI. above, pp. 316-325. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 56 (i) : " Sunt ibidem cclx acre terre arabilis. ... De quibus seminabantur ante mortem predict! Egidii de seisona hyemali cl acre et de seisona quadragesimali iiii" x acre." 398 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS i6o acres out of 220.' These ratios recall that which we have seen maintained at Beddingfield in Suffolk a half-century later,^ and suggest that the tillage of the ToUeshunt demesne may not have been the usual Essex practice. Such a belief is fostered by the isolation of the instance. Of the forty Essex extents con- tained in the inquisitions of the decade 7-16 Edward III, only at ToUeshunt is the demesne described as lying at the same time one- third fallow and in common. In view of these circumstances, it is scarcely necessary to abandon the conclusion reached from a study of Essex fines, charters, and surveys — the conclusion that the field system of Essex was not that of the midlands, but resembled either the East Anglian system or the Kentish. Having ascertained that the extents from the four counties of the lower Thames basin during a decade of the fourteenth century are almost entirely indifferent to the three-field system, we may proceed to summarize the more positive results of this chapter. The counties in question have been discussed together, not so much because of their topographical unity as because their field systems had certain characteristics which differentiated them from their neighbors on all sides. Unlike Kent and East AngUa, they des- ignated the unit of villein tenure a virgate; unlike the midlands, they did not distribute the parcels of a virgate between two or three large arable fields. Along with the characteristics which they had in common, how- ever, went certain divergences that distinguished one county from another. In Hertfordshire and Middlesex there was no exception to the use of the term virgate, and the occurrence of that unit was usual at a late date. With regard to Essex neither of these generaUzations is valid. Other units were there sometimes sub- stituted for the virgate, notably the " terra " and an unnamed area of uniform size, both already met with in East Anglia. The ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 66 (33), Newport: " Sunt ibidem ccxx acre terre arabilis . . . unde seminabantur ante mortem predicte Margarete clx acre de semine yemali et quadragesimali." Ibid., F. 56 (i),"Lachlegh": " Sunt ibidem ccxxii acre terre arabilis. ... De quibus seminabantur ante mortem predicti Egidii de seisona hyemali iiii"v acre et de seisona quadragesimali Ixxvi acre." ^ CI. above, p. 331. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 399 integrity of the virgate, moreover, was not long maintained in Essex, where the use of the term so late as the sixteenth century was unusual. In Surrey virgates bore the midland name and continued in- tact; but the county furnishes one deviation from the customary nomenclature which is significant in determining the affiliation of the field system of at least a part of the region. This divergent nomenclature occurs in an extent of Ewell, undated, but at least as early as the thirteenth century.' In this extent the tenants' holdings are never rated in virgates but always in iuga. The first tenant held " unum iugerum [iugum] terre continens xiii acras terre," twelve others had one iugum each, one had one and one-half iuga, three had three iuga each, and fourteen had half- iuga. Although no field detail relative to the iuga is given, we are able to supply a certain amount from a field-book of 8 Henry IV.^ In the latter document as we pass from furlong to furlong, each composed largely of acre and half-acre parcels in the hands of many tenants, we often meet with such items as " dimidia acra quam tenet Thomas Wagmore de tenemento Wowards." ' Now, one of the tenants of a half-iugum in the extent was Rogerus Woward; and by looking closely we shall find that many of the parcels of the field-book were still attributed to tenementa which bore the names of the tenants of the extent. In the interim be- tween the drawing up of the two docimients the iuga had come to be called tenementa and the constituent parcels of each iugum had fallen into the hands of divers new tenants. The latter change is precisely that which thirteenth-century tenementa in Norfolk underwent, and the Ewell field-book in its attribution of parcels to tenementa is like a fifteenth-century Norfolk field- book.^ How much the parcels of the Ewell tenementa were dispersed throughout the open arable area cannot be precisely ascertained, for the field-book often neglects to attribute strips to their respective tenementa. Considerable scattering there ' Register or Memorial of Ewell, Surrey (ed. Cecil Deedes, London, 1913), pp. 135-162. The texts printed are from a sixteenth-century transcript. 2 Ibid., pp. I-I3S' ' Ibid., p. 35- ' Cf. above, p. 334. 400 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS certainly was, since parcels belonging to the same tenement are often widely separated in the field-book's enumeration. The date at which the tenementa were in the hands of the tenants whose names they came to bear is determined by the extent. Since this document is cast in the usual thirteenth-century form, and since in 8 Henry IV a parcel of a tenement was still occasionally in the hands of a descendant of the original holder,' the extent undoubt- edly belongs to the thirteenth century. What we see, then, at Ewell are thirteenth-century tenementa, very much Uke those of Norfolk, bearing the names of contemporary Kentish units. As in Kent, too, the subdivisions of the rood at Ewell were known as " day works." ^ Thus, the Ewell field arrangements, repro- duced probably in many Surrey townships, become a connecting fink between the East Anglian and Kentish systems. Essex as well as Surrey shows East Anglian and Kentish anal- ogies. Its " terra " and unnamed unit of villein tenure were East Anglian; its " day's work," a unit of measure often used was Kentish, and there were of course Kentish counterparts for the consolidated or nearly consolidated virgates of Essex. Ex- cept for the northwestern part of the county, deviation from the original Kentish system was less than in East Anglia or in Surrey. Especially are the compact holdings of Essex noteworthy. Al- though we have no evidence that these were rectangular blocks, as were the GilUngham iuga, nevertheless the descriptions of virgates at Barking are not unlike those of iuga at Newchurch and especially at Wye. Only the name differed; whereas at Wye the virgate was the fourth part of the iugum, in Essex it was, for purposes of estimate, the fourth part of the hide. Units so essentially alike in aspect seem to assure us that the system prevalent in Kent extended to the north of the Thames. It is doubtful whether the northwestern corner of Essex should be included in the above generaUzation. Much more open field was to be found there than in the rest of the county, and the terriers of holdings are very much hke those of Hertfordshire in ' " I acra quam tenet Petrus Saleman de tenemento suo." One of the iuga of the extent was held by Johannes Saleman. Register of Ewell, pp. 34, 141. 2 Ibid., p. 159. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 40I the number, location, and naming of their parcels. Indeed, it would seem that the entire hilly district extending from Essex to the Thames ought to be considered as one whole. It embraces, besides northwestern Essex, Hertfordshire and the Chiltem re- gion of southern Buckinghamshire and southern Oxfordshire. In its early days this region must have been, even more than at present, a wooded area. Denes, dells, groves, hills, and lees, which so often recur in the terminations of the names of open- field divisions in this region, suggest the original condition of the arable field. Hills and forests, as it happens, have been features not without influence upon field systems. In a territory where woodland was relatively extensive, where it was somewhat difficult to transform waste into arable, tenants can have had no concern about a compact fallow field to supplement the pasture. If, further, an additional arable furlong were at any time to be improved from the waste, one non-adjacent to the existing arable may now and then have been selected. The most feasible spot for improvement may often have been a valley or a slope which, after being brought under cultivation, would still be surrounded by woodland. These considerations should be kept in mind when surmises about the origin of the field system of this Chiltern region are made. Under the circumstances, it would seem haz- ardous to posit either midland or Kentish affiliations. It is improbable that simple two- or three-field arrangements, with vir- gates divided between the fields, were ever existent there; yet there may have been such in the earliest days, and the later ir- regularities may have arisen from the addition of assarted areas. On the other hand, there is no reason to assimie a Kentish origin for the system. The villein units were named differently from the Kentish, they were not compact areas, they were never rated in " day's works," they were not subdivided among co- tenants. The Chiltern area should, therefore, be looked upon as a boundary region so influenced in its field system by its topog- raphy that its original affiliations cannot readily be discovered. Middlesex remains. In the east its open fields seem to have been like those of Hertfordshire; in the west it is just possible that some of the townships of the Thames plain were in three 402 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS fields. The character of a Jacobean survey of Feltham is the principal reason for admitting the latter possibility; other evi- dence tells for irregular fields, hke the adjacent ones of Surrey. What is clear is that the plain on both sides of the Thames west of London constituted a region where the midland system and the Kentish system came into contact. In Middlesex, the former seems to have prevailed, in Surrey the latter. The outcome was a hybrid system difficult to follow in its origins; and, indeed, this difficillty pertains to the field arrangements which characterized the entire lower valley of the Thames. Scarcely any part of England is so dependent upon conjecture for the writing of its early field history. For this reason it is to be hoped that new documents may in time dissipate some of the uncertaintieis which this chapter leaves unsettled. CHAPTER X Results and Conjectures In an introductory chapter it was suggested that a study of field systems might throw light upon the history of English agricul- ture; it was intimated, too, that a discrimination between regions characterized by different field arrangements might be of im- portance for the history of EngKsh settlement. The time has come to inquire whether these predictions have been fulfilled. The preceding chapters have, it is hoped, established certain general conclusions. The current view that the two- and three- field system was prevalent throughout England has been rejected, and it has been shown that this system was restricted to a large irregular area lying chiefly in the midlands. This central area reached northward as far as Durham and southward to the Chan- nel; it extended from Cambridgeshire on the east to the Welsh border on the west.' In the counties farther toward the south- east, the southwest, and the northwest different field systems have been discovered. Whatever the dissimilarity between these, they have shown agreement in not dividing the unenclosed arable of their village fields into two or three parts to each of which one-half or one-third of every tenant's parcels were assigned. A marking-off of central England as the precinct of the two- and three-field system is significant for the history of agriculture. The development of this art has depended primarily upon the extent to which and the manner in which the soil has been utilized for the multiplication of agricultural products. At one end of the fine of development stands the unenclosed open waste, parts of it transiently improved for purposes of tillage, as in the Scottish outfields; ^ at the other end stands the modern enclosed farm, its acres cultivated in accordance with the principles of con- vertible husbandry. Between these termini he two well-marked ' Cf. map facing the title-page. ^ Cf. above, pp. 158 sq. 404 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS phases of progress. The first is the reduction of the waste to regular and considerable, but still open-field, tillage; the second is the enclosure of the now well-established arable fields and re- maining commons, accompanied by some increase in improved pasture and by the substitution for the old fixed succession of crops and fallow of a varied rotation of grains and grasses. The first phase comprehends the development of open-field systems, the second the history of enclosure. With both these subjects the preceding chapters have been concerned, but with the latter somewhat incidentally. What, now, does our investigation show to have been the rela- tion between the subdivision of England according to field sys- tems and the lines of agricultural development just indicated ? Precisely this, that enclosure was earhest achieved outside the precincts of the midland system. The map which Slater has roughly constructed from the list of eighteenth- and nineteenth- century enclosure acts shows that the midland area was the one where open fields hngered longest.^ Gay had already shown that the small enclosures of the sixteenth century took place particu- larly within this region, and had correctly inferred that the open fields then encroached upon lay largely within those counties in which such fields were especially to be found.^ In most counties lying without the midland area, unenclosed arable fields, so far as existent, disappeared for the most part before the era of parlia- mentary enclosure. Only Surrey, Middlesex, Hertfordshire, and a part of Norfolk then retained any appreciable stretches of them. In Northumberland, Durham, and Cumberland they had vanished rapidly after the sixteenth century. Earlier still they had ceased to be characteristic of Devon and Cornwall, Cheshire and Lancashire, Suffolk, Kent and Essex.' One reason for this early disappearance of unenclosed arable lies in the nature of the field systems prevalent in these counties. Since both Celtic and Kentish systems were in part determined ' English Peasantry, p. 73. * "Inclosures in England," Quarterly Journal of Economics, xvii. 576, 593-594. In a footnote contemporary authorities are cited. ' Cf. above, chapters VI, VII, IX. RESULTS AND CONJECTURES 405 by the custom of subdividing land among heirs, some intermix- ture of the parcels of tenants' holdings naturally appeared wher- ever either system was practiced. But the Celtic system did not necessarily imply an extensive development of runrig, especially if the region were a pastoral one; and the Kentish system did not render immobile the intermixture of tenants' strips. It was possible under both systems for holdings to retain a certain degree of compactness, a fact which naturally facilitated enclosure. At any rate, no close connection between a three-course rotation of crops and three large fields ever arose. Often, too, there were in the counties in question tracts of woodland or waste, moor or down, so large that it was possible to set little store upon the use of the fallow arable for pasture, a feature which the midland sys- tem always emphasized. If it did seem desirable thus to utiHze the fallow arable, as happened in Norfolk, wattles were employed. Freed in one way or another from the pasturage needs of the mid- lands, and disposed with none of the symmetrical arrangement there prevalent, the open-field arable acres of the non-midland counties readily yielded to enclosure at an early time. Such is the first and not the least noteworthy effect which field systems have had upon the agricultural development of England. The midland system, on the contrary, exerted upon this devel- opment an influence which was to some extent inhibitive. It delayed enclosure. The correspondence between its precinct on the one hand and the regions of the persistent open field of the parliamentary awards on the other, shows in a general way that it was pecuKarly favorable to the preservation of unenclosed arable, that it served, indeed, as a protective shell. In order to view this relationship more closely we have given somewhat care- ful attention to the later enclosure history of Oxfordshire. In consequence it has become apparent that those townships which longest remained open were the ones which clung most tenaciously to the old system. If this was the case in the eighteenth century, when incentives to abandon the traditional tillage were strong- est, the protection afforded by the system was probably even more effective during earlier centuries, when there was less thought of change. The persistent open field of the midlands, 406 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS therefore, coincides with the precincts of the two- and three-field system, because in a general way field system and unenclosed arable here stood to each other in the relation of cause to effect. Although the midland field system was inherently adverse to enclosure, it should not be inferred that within the large area characterized by it no progress took place between Anglo-Saxon days, when a two-field system was probably in use, and the early nineteenth century, when enclosure was for the most part ac- complished. For it is one of the cardinal theses of this book that, owing to changing field arrangements within the midlands, agricul- ture did develop there during the centuries in question. The first important movement of this sort was a transition from two-field to three-field tillage, a change which, according to our evidence, seems to have been brought about in many parts of the eastern and northern midlands during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The second change was later, occurring apparently between the middle of the sixteenth century and the middle of the eighteenth. In some places it took the form of a subdivision of two fields into four, three of which were tilled annually; else- where it appeared as the transformation of regular fields into irregular ones, a process probably attended by improved tillage and certainly often accompanied by considerable piecemeal enclosure. Evidence regarding the second change is the more abundant, and considerable of it has been cited. ^ Several Tudor and Jaco- bean surveys have established the fact that departures from the two- and three-field system were known in certain parts of Eng- land as early as the sixteenth century, especially in the counties of the western midlands from Durham to Somerset, and above all in the valley of the Severn. Typical of the disappearance of open fields in this region is the enclosure history of Herefordshire, which has been examined in some detail. The open arable fields of this county had before the days of par- liamentary enclosure so shrunken that they constituted not more than two and one-half per cent of its total area. The abandonment of communal tillage, and hence the achievement of enduring agri- ' Cf . above, chapters III, IV. RESULTS AND CONJECTURES 407 cultural progress, had been brought to pass, if not so promptly as in many non-midland counties, at least earlier than in the east- ern midlands. For this progress the county seems to have been indebted to certain irregularities in its field arrangements, some of which were already apparent in Jacobean times. These irreg- ularities were in turn due to divers causes. The situation of townships within fertile river valleys, which throughout midland England often proved itself an influence conducive to the appear- ance of irregular fields, was characteristic of a large part of Here- fordshire. Another general influence, the location of townships within a forested area settled and improved relatively late, was not without effect in the county. Along with these wide-reaching causes of irregularities in field systems, irregularities which in turn were conducive to enclosure, went a special circumstance, probably operative in other counties of the western midlands as well as in Herefordshire. This was the small size of township fields. In a region characterized by hamlet settlements, as some of these western counties were, the improved arable was not great in amount and the tenants were not numerous. Departures from a regular system were easier to make than where fields were large and tenants many; and our evidence goes to show that they were frequently made. The outcome of this and of the other influences mentioned was often a multiplicity of small fields. Jacobean surveys and enclosure awards have served to illustrate these fields and have shown how they facilitated piecemeal enclosure. For piecemeal enclosure was the form of agricultural develop- ment naturally adopted by districts circumstanced like Here- fordshire. The course of events differed in Oxfordshire, a county which, because of its situation in the more eastern midlands, serves to exemplify the agricultural progress of that region. The first and dominant fact disclosed by our inquiries is that large tracts of open arable common field persisted in the county until the second half of the eighteenth century. Some thirty-seven per cent of its area then remained in this state and had to be enclosed by act of par- liament. One should not infer from this that a certain amount of open arable field had failed to escape enclosure between the Middle 408 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Ages and the period in question. Large parts of some townships and all of others had succumbed to it. Conducive thereto were certain of the causes operative in Herefordshire — situation in a river valley or in a forest area; contributory, too, was the cherished passion for country estates manifested by the new gentry of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The salient feature of agricultural development in Oxfordshire before 1760, however, and presumably the one characteristic of many counties of the eastern midlands, was not the enclosure of open fields but the improvement of them as they lay unenclosed. The redland district of northern Oxfordshire is typical. Once characterized by two-field townships, it began from the end of the sixteenth century to subdivide the two fields into four and to get thereby an annual return from three-fourths of the acres rather than from one-half of them. In the eighteenth century still more of the arable was annually tilled and the rotation of crops became as complex as upon enclosed lands. Improvement in the tillage of unenclosed fields was not con- fined to Oxfordshire. We have testimony to the early appear- ance of four fields in southwestern and northeastern England, in the valleys of the Severn and Trent. Irregular fields, too, of which we have found many throughout the midlands as early as the sixteenth century, probably reflected other forms of improved cultivation, the nature of which is not always discernible from the surveys. In so far as these irregularities did not correspond with a changing tillage of arable, they imply that the arable strips were transformed to meadow, a phase of development pe- culiarly suited to river valleys. As it happens, we have given most attention to such transformation in Durham open fields during the seventeenth century; but hints from other regions indicate that it was far from unknown throughout the northern midlands. In whatever way, therefore, open arable fields underwent change before the middle of the eighteenth century, whether they submitted to a process of piecemeal enclosure with some conver- sion to meadow and pasture, or whether on the other hand they attained to a higher standard of tillage, remaining arable the RESULTS AND CONJECTURES 409 while, the fact cannot be escaped that field systems, either as cause or as manifestation, were associated with agricultural de- velopment. For this reason the preceding chapters have a bear- ing upon the history of English farming. If the influence of divergent field systems upon the progress of the enclosure of open arable fields is reasonably clear, there is more doubt about the interpretation of this diversity in relation to the history of the early settlement of England. The tradi- tional account of the Anglo-Saxon occupation, as gleaned from Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, has by modern scholars been brought into connection with other evidence. Most opposed to it and most suggestive is Seebohm's theory of a Roman origin of the manor, its fields, and its class distinctions. ' Meitzen and Maitland have pointed to the contrast between nucleated and scattered settlements, with an intimation that the latter were of Celtic origin.^ Chadwick has done much to abolish the distinction between Angles and Saxons, concluding that only Kent, the Isle of Wight, and the southern coast of Hampshire were occupied by a distinct branch of the invaders.' Turner, finally, has sketched a theory which discerns Roman elements in the five-hide manor, and possibly in the rod of southern England.* All students of Anglo-Saxon England agree upon the dominance which the new-comers of the fifth century exercised upon insti- tutions. Legal, military, and political organization became Ger- manic. The spoken language retained few Celtic words, while villages and towns assumed names which in their terminations at least are Teutonic. If any Roman or Celtic influence survived, it was in matters connected with the lowest stratiun of society, the stratum engaged primarily in the cultivation of the soil. By enslaving a considerable mass of the British population, itself already Romanized, the conquerors could, it is clear, have created ' English Village Community, pp. 409 sq. ' Meitzen, Siedelung und Agrarwesen, ii. 118 sq., and Anlage 66a; Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 15. ' H. M. Chadwick, Origin of the English Nation, p. 88. * G. J. Turner, Calendar of the Feet of Fines relating to the County of Huntingdon, pp. kx, cix. 4IO ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS a rural estate not unlike the later mediaeval manor. In taking over the cultivators of the soil they might also have adopted the methods of tillage already practiced by the sitting tenants. As a result, the ancient tenant-holding and its relation to the town- ship's arable would have persisted after the Germanic conquest. On the assumption, therefore, that the Romano-Celtic population was to some extent assimilated rather than exterminated, we should expect to find in Anglo-Saxon England a sub-stratum of servile dependents whose holdings had Roman or possibly Celtic characteristics. What should appear in the extant evidence as testimony to the existence of a conquered and depressed group are Roman or Celtic agrarian usages and early traces of serf- dom. This was Seebohm's thesis, and to a limited extent it is Turner's. The subject discussed in the preceding pages is one that touches the history of settlement at just this point. The nature of field systems depends primarily upon the relation of the unit of villein tenure to the arable fields. For this reason it is pertinent to inquire in what measure the systems that have been described are Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Roman. So far as this point can be ascertained, additional matter will be at hand for solving a troublesome problem of English social history. One limitation of our evidence touching field systems which seriously impairs its appUcability to the problem above described is its relatively late character. Little of it antedates the thir- teenth century, a period itself seven hundred years removed from the Germanic invasion. Although Domesday Book and certain twelfth-century documents refer to the unit of villein tenure, they disclose scarcely more than the names it bore, giv- ing no descriptions that relate it to the arable fields in which it lay. More informing are the Anglo-Saxon charters, which in a few instances testify to the existence of intermixed parcels and by phrases in the boundaries hint at open-field usages. Even the assurance, however, that some form of open field existed in midland England in the tenth century is not very valuable for our purpose, partly because the information is still four centuries later than the coming of the Germans, but still more because, RESULTS AND CONJECTURES 4II in view of the fact that open-field arable of one sort or another could be found throughout ICngland in the thirteenth century, the existence of it at an earlier time is almost a postulate. What we should like to know are the varieties of open field with which the Anglo-Saxons were familiar, and of these the charters tell us nothing. It is necessary, then, to assume that distinctions which obtained in the thirteenth century are assignable to the period that saw the accomplishment of Saxon settlement, or at least to the period that followed the Danish invasions. If this assumption be not admitted, variations in field systems have nothing to tell about the settlement of England. If it be granted, however, that field arrangements as we find them in the thirteenth century represent more ancient usages, the preceding chapters have implications. It has appeared that a large midland area was characterized by a two- and three-field system. That this system was not Celtic an examination of Scottish, Irish, and Welsh evidence has made clear. In Celtic countries we do not find the arable of a farm, township, or town- land divided into two or three equal compact areas and tilled under a rotation of two crops and a fallow. This was, on the other hand, or it came to be, a custom prevalent in Germany, es- pecially east and south of the Weser.' Since this is the region from which the invaders who settled midland England appear to have come," it is probable that the two- and three-field arrange- ments of the midlands represent Germanic usage.' If this be true, tlie thorough Germanization of central England suggested by various practices is confirmed by the testimony of field sys- tems. No Romano-Briton population remained there in numbers large enough to preserve cither a Celtic or a Roman method of tilling tlie soil. The westernmost territory which thus yielded to the invasion of Teutonic custom is interesting, since it did so rather grudg- ingly. It comprised the counties of Herefordshire and Shrop- shire, a fertile region early occupied by the Magonsaetan. Here, ' MciUcn, Sieii< iimi AgrarwrMti, i. .?,t-36, 67, 169, and Atlas, Uebersichts- knrtc; Hansscn, Af;riirlihtorisrlie Abhamllung,e>i, i. 171. * Chadwick, Origin of the English Nation, pp. 88, 91, 116; map, p. iii. ' Cf. Mcitzcn, na above, ii. no. 412 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS as in the midlands, the invaders impressed upon their new con- quest an open-field system which, according to our earliest evidence, was one of three fields. In another respect, however, they seem to have adopted the habits of their predecessors: their settlements were small and of the hamlet type. Perhaps they assimilated a part of the Briton population itself along with the Celtic type of settlement. Place-names here evince more of a commingling of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon elements than is usual in the midlands — a further indication that there was in these two counties a more equitable balance of Celtic and Germanic forces in matters of settlement and agriculture than appears elsewhere in England, unless it be in Northumberland. Other counties of the west and north diverged more sharply from the midland model. Often townships and settlements in them were small, as in Celtic countries. In Cornwall, Devon, Che- shire, and southern Lancashire open arable fields seem never to have been numerous or, in any township, extensive. The same cannot be said of Northumberland, Cumberland, and northern Lancashire, where such fields were relatively frequent in. the thirteenth century and comprised the largest part of the tilled land of each township. But whether large or small, numerous or infrequent, the open arable fields of all these counties were not of the midland type. In no instance (with perhaps a reserva- tion relative to Northxmiberland) were they divided into two or three equal parts to which the strips of each holding were equi- tably assigned. In appearance they were more like Scottish or Irish open fields, in which the strips were said to lie in runrig. The underlying principle of runrig was the assignment to each tenant of a share in every kind of soil within a township, when- ever an occasion for distribution arose. Since the several qual- ities of land were likely to lie in various parts of the cultivated area, a scattering of parcels was to some extent the result. Re- course to runrig, therefore, brought about either temporarily or permanently a dispersion of the parcels of a holding. Yet there was no guarantee that these would be as symmetrically located throughout the arable area as they were in two- and three-field townships. There might even occur a segregation of parcels, a RESULTS AND CONJECTURES 413 feature which certain Cumberland terriers seem to reveal. In general, however, the parcels in the larger township fields which lay in runrig, especially those in Northumberland, doubtless remained widely dispersed. Why, then, it may be asked, was the custom of allotting strips in runrig incompatible with a three-field system ? The answer is that it was not necessarily incompatible, since runrig might under certain conditions develop into the system in question. To understand what these conditions were we must turn to an- other aspect of Celtic field arrangements still visible in eight- eenth-century Scotland. This was the practice, appropriate to primitive agriculture, of improving successively different parts of the waste and allowing each part in turn to revert to fallow for a series of years. Traces of such a custom are also perceptible in documents from Cumberland, but are more apparent in others from Northumberland, a fact that has led us to formulate the hypothesis that the English border counties originally had the same field system as Scotland but developed it differently. In both regions, we may surmise, field arrangements were based upon runrig, a device that assigned to all tenants within the township strips in any tract of waste brought under transient tillage. As agriculture advanced, however, the two regions ex- panded this system in different ways. Scottish husbandry turned to an intensive tillage of the arable which lay nearest the home- stead, the so-called " infield," and by the aid of manure took from it an annual crop, the remaining " outfield " being treated in the old manner. In the English border counties, on the other hand, no permanent differentiation was made between infield and out-, field; but, as the demand for a greater return from the soil grew, the period of fallow which had been allowed to the transiently improved parcels of waste was shortened. Eventually, we may suppose, it was reduced to an interval of one year in three, as it appears in fourteenth-century Northumberland extents. When this stage was reached, transition to a three-field system was feasible, involving only such regrouping of the parcels of the holdings as would render compact the area left fallow each year. Since the advantage of a fallow field of this sort lay in its utiKty 414 ENGUSH FllU.D SYSTEMS for purposes of pastvirano, tlio trimsttiun in question may liavt- occurred in those placi-s in which it was dcsirabli" to utiii/.c' all available pasture. Where, on (ho other hand, the moor and foil of the townsliip furnished anii>lo grajiing ground, it nia>' never have come about at all. (\'rtain features of the Nortlunuher- land evidence, csi)ecially the niarking-olT of I'lelds on sixteenth- century nia|is, suggest that some townships of this county may have adopted the three-field system; but the unecjual division of the parcels of the tenants' holdings ajuong the lields leaves (he matter in doubt. Other Northumberland townships probably never created three equal compact lields. Nothing whatever in the evidence from Cumberland and northern Lancashire leads us to think that the three-tield system ever dcveloi)ed there. Cheshire, southern Lancashire, western Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall were regions in which there wiis either a far slighter extension of runrig in early day.s or a more rapid consolidation of scattered {)arcel8 than in Northumberland, Cumberland, and northern Lancashire. In exi^laining how runrig aros{> we have had occasion to })oint out that a farm, township, or townland might show no trace of it if the custom of joint succession had not been elTective, or if the landlord had intervened to prevent subdivision, or if he had at any time exercised his authority by reconsolidating the subdivided arable; it might a])i)ear in only a modified form if the lands to be divided were meadow or pasture rather than arable .md the need of marking out strips for coJlper ative ploughing did not arise. One or another of these factors seems to have been at work in the counties now under considera- tion, 'rriices of runrig h.-ive been found in each of them, but the intermixed strips show evident tendencies toward early disap- pearance. In Cornwall and Devon, furthermore, the lands so divided were at times .ipparently improved waste or marsh. The conclusion suggested is that the counties in <|uestion were sub- jected to Celtic influence in the matter of lield systemH, but in a diiTerenl way from those to the north: the original farms, ap- parently like many in pastoral Wales, sometimes escaped sub- division, or at least escai)e(l it to such a degree that recoiis<»lida- tion was easy and was achieved at an early dat{\ RESULTS AND CONJECTURES 4IS Southeastern England with its divergent field systems was widely separated from the counties in which Celtic influence was manifested. Since the great midland area stretched between, there would seem to be little a priori probability that irregularities in southeastern fields were of Celtic origin. It is of course possible to argue that all English field systems arose on the basis of runrig, as did the Celtic. On this hypothesis the two- and three-field arrangements of the midlands would be such adaptations of run- rig as have been suggested above relative to Northumberland/ and the systems of the south and east would be other manifesta- tions of it. Such a theory, however, ignores the fact that the midland system was that of the Germans in their home land and was thus more than any other essentially Teutonic. Or are we to assume that the Germans, both in Germany and in England, had a genius for developing runrig into a more regular system ? At all events, the hypothesis would encounter a further difficulty in the fact that the peculiarities of the fields of southeastern England were not all Celtic in t3^e. Settlements and fields here were not small, as they were on the western border, and certain of the earliest units which are met with in the southeast had no corre- spondents at aU in the west. The Kentish system is at once most divergent and most com- prehensible. The best-defined feature of it is the iugimi, the unit of villein tenure, which, compact and rectangular in shape, had its exact coimteipart nowhere else in England. If we ask whether the continent offered analogies, we are at once reminded of Roman measurements of land. The application of these, as Meitzen has shown,^ resulted in a superficial unit of the sort actually foimd in fourteenth-century Kent. This similarity is of the highest importance; for, despite the centuries that have to be bridged, we are led to the inference that the Kentish field system was of Roman origin. While the Anglo-Saxons who occupied the midlands and the south established there the ele- ments of a two- and three-field system, the Germans who occupied Kent seem to have adopted Roman arrangements and to have ' Cf. above, p. 225. ' Sieddung und Agrarwesen, i. 276-321, and Anlage 29. 4I<5 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS maintained a closer agrarian tie with Romaji Britain than per- sisted elsewhere in the island. The field arrangements of the other southeastern counties are more difficult to interpret, and in attempting to discover their origin we advance fttrther into the realm of conjecture. To ex- plain the formation of East Anglian eriungs and tenementa an hypothesis has been sketched which in brief is as follows. The peculiar pasturage arrangements of Norfolk and Suffolk, arising from the possession by individuals and small manors of the privi- lege of independent foldage, is suggestive of a connection between the formation of these manors and the development of the field systeiri of the region. Inasmuch as the manors antedate Domes- day Book, the foldage privileges may be looked upon as corre- spondingly early. A more decisive feature in the East Anglian system, however, is the aspect assumed by its unit of villein tenure when we first get descriptions of it in the thirteenth century. Its compactness in some instances and the segregation of its parcels in others reveal its similarity to the Kentish iugum ; but it was usually less like the intact Kentish unit than like a Kentish holding after the iuga had for some generations been sub- divided and a tenant had come to hold parcels in several neigh- boring iuga. This feature of the East Anglian tenementum is perhaps best explained by the supposition that a pre-Norman organization of petty manors in East Anglia arrested for a mo- ment the disintegration of ancient iuga which were once charac- teristic of the region, and established as new units the holdings that we find. Such a reorganization of the agrarian situation we have tentatively attributed to the Danish invasion, since to that intrusion was due the greatest social upheaval of Anglo- Saxon days. In this way the East Anglian and Kentish field systems, originally similar, may have come to be unlike each other. Should these inferences be correct, the area within which Roman influence persisted after the invasions of the fifth century is en- larged to include, along with Kent, two other counties of the southeast. Essex, situated as it is between Kent and East Anglia, could with difficulty have escaped falling within the same sphere of RESULTS AND CONJECTURES 417 agrarian influence. Nor, as a matter of fact, was its field system of such a character as to tell against a belief that it did so. To be sure, the villein units in Essex were virgates, as they were not to the north or the south; but the virgates in a large part of the county tended to be compact areas which may well have been related to the Kentish iuga. Similarities of nomenclature, too, especially the empkjyment of the term " day's work," emphasize the conncj tion with Kent. Like r^eculiarities tempt us to extend the Kentish system to Surrey. " Iuga " and " day's works " were once known at Ewell, and what we learn about the later field arrangements of the a)unty is not prohibitive of an early prevalence of the Kentish system within its borders. Division of holdings among three arable fields seems never to have prevailed there; nor can the aspect of a villein holding have dilTered greatly from that of one in East Anglia, or from the appearance of one in Kent after the disintegration of the iuga had set in. In view of these circum- stances, the most credible hypothesis relative to Surrey is the assumption that, Hke East Anglia and Essex, it was originally within the Roman sphere of agrarian influence; that, like these three counties, it diverged somewhat more from the norm than did Kent; and finally that, like East Anglia, it reorganized the disintegrating iugum, adopting for the new unit the name of the midland virgate, a name likewise favored in Essex. Whether the same hypothesis should be applied to the region which constitutes Middlesex, Hertfordshire, and the Chiltems is uncertain. This is an area which, with the exception of its north- ern fringe and possibly the flat plain west from London, seems not to have known the three-field system. On the other hand, its field nomenclature and the absence of consolidation which the parcels of its holdings reveal apparently leave it without the sphere of Kentish or Roman influence. A factor that enters into the situation is the hilly character of the district, which was doubtless once heavily forested. Probably much of it was set- tled later than the plains round about, and a large part of the arable was undoubtedly improved from the forest state. Whether the tiny settlements which thus extended their tillage organized 41 8 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS their first fields after midland or after Kentish models is a question that must be left undetermined. Since the region forms a border- land between these two spheres of influence, some settlers may have come from the midlands and others from the southeast. The only thing that is clear is the development of arable fields through the assarting of the waste in such manner that the ten- ants' holdings came to comprise a certain amount of unenclosed land lying in scattered parcels. The foregoing explanation of the field systems of southeastern England, hypothetical as it is in part, does at least leave us with a generalization which, if true, is important. It implies that throughout five counties of the southeast the influence of Roman Britain in agrarian affairs persisted after the Gennanic conquest of the fifth century. Either the conquerors showed extraordi- nary flexibility in adopting a field system with which they must have been unfamiliar, or they spared a part of the native popu- lation who, as serfs, continued to employ their own agricultural methods. Since the latter supposition is the more credible, we are led to posit a greater survival of the Romano-Celtic popula- tion in southeastern Britain than in the midlands. Anglo-Saxon England is thus, so far as field systems are indic- ative of settlement, divisible into three parts. The large central area, stretching from Durham to the Channel and from Cam- bridgeshire to Wales, was the region throughout which Germanic usage prevailed, presumably because of the thoroughgoing nature of the fifth-century subjugation; the southeast was characterized by the persistence of Roman influence, a circumstance which implies that the conquest was less destructive there than to the north and west; the counties of the southwest, the northwest, and the north retained Celtic agrarian usages in one form or another, a retention that is readily comprehensible in view of the difficulty with which, as we know, these districts were slowly overpowered by the invaders. This subdivision of Anglo- Saxon England, together with the evidence upon which it is based, constitutes the contribution which the study of field sys- tems is able to make to the history of pre-Norman conquest and settlement. APPENDICES APPENDIX I A. EXTRACTS FROM A SURVEY OF KINGTON, WILTSHIRE Harl. MS. 3961, ff. 40-62. 9 Henry VIII Kyngton Terrakium Omnium Terrarum et tenementorum imacum finibns, Redditibus, et heriectis eiusdem manerii, Factum ibidem mense Marcii Anno Regni Regis Henrici Octavi Nono Et Anno Domini Ricardi Beere Abbatis vicesimo Quinto coram Fratre Thoma Sutton, Cellerario forinseco, per Sacramentum et fidelitatem Ricardi Snelle, prepositi ibidem, Johannis Tanner, Willelmi Neck, Thome Mylle, Thome Coke, Walteri Tourney, Henrici Belle de Langley, Johannis Kyngton, Ricardi Broune, Willelmi Tomey, Walteri Amyett, et Thome Amyett de Kyng- tone, ceterorumque tenendum Domini ibidem ad Idem Terrarium vocatorum et distincte examinatorum preter specialem perambula- tionem et mensuracionem factam ibidem atque probatam. COMMUNIA Est ibidem quedam Communa vocata Langleyhethe continens cccx acras ubi dominus et tenentes custumarii communicare possunt cimi omnimodis averiis omni tempore anni. Et ulterius Thomas Montague heres Baroni et Johannes Gangelle et eorum tenentes in Lang- ley communicare possunt in eadem. NUNDINE Sunt ibidem Nundine in festo Sancti MichaeUs Archiangeli unde Tolnetum extenditur communibus annis xvi s. FiRMA Terrarum Dominicalium ibidem Ricardus Snell, firmarius Domini, tenet Curiam Dominicalem, viz., Aulam, Cameram, Coquinam, grangiam, boveriam, Domum Columba- rium, et Croftam in boriali parte Curie, continentes insimul ix acras dimidiam. Item tenet xx acras prati in Pekyngelmed A festo Purificationis Beate Marie usque amocionem feni. 422 APPENDIX I Item tenet pasturam De Ruydon continentem xxxi Acras i pertica- tam per redditum xiii s. iiii d. solvendo annuatim Prioresse rectricique de Kyngtone in pecuniis pro xi averiis euntibus in predicta pastura per firmarium domini ibidem viii s. vi d. ultra xiii s. iiii d. predictos. Item tenet pasturam et subboscum de Ynwode continentes xx acras per redditum iii s. iiii d. Item tenet cxxvi acras iii perticatas terre arabilis in duobus Campis unde in Camp>o orientali in La hamme xiiii acras dimidiam In la Deene iiii acras in ii*"" particulis In Famdelle ix acras dimidiam in iiii" particulis In Sourelond unam acram dimidiam In Middelfurlong xx acras In Manshulle iiii acras dimidiam In Smethyescroft x acras [Total, 542 acres] Et in Campo occidentali in Brechefurlong iiii acras iii perticatas In Brodefxirlong xv acras dimidiam In Wellemore x acras dimidiam In Lordeshulle xiii acras Item ibidem ii acras prati In Overlordeshulle xi acras et in Colroft vi acras dimidiam inclusas [Total, s6| acres] Redditus Ixvii s. viii d. Bosci Est ibidem quidam boscus vocatus Hajrwode continens cccc acras bosd et subbosci unde vendi pwjssunt quolibet anno xxv acre subbosci. si copis bene preservetur et superintendatur pretium acre xiii s. iiii d, et sic quilibet copis recrescet in xvi annis. LiBERi Tenentes ibidem Johannes Saunders tenet unum tenementxxm apud Haywode in feodo quondam Thome Bolehide per redditum annuatim ii aucarum precium viiid. Thomas Alius et heres Cristoferi Troponelle tenet imam virgatam terre in feodo quondam Edwardi Basyng et nuper Thome Troponelle APPENDIX I 423 per redditum annuatim vs. ixd. ob. q., unde ad festum Natalis Domini XX d., Pasche xx d., Johannis Baptiste ix d. ob. q., et Sancti Michaelis Archiangeli xx d., et heres eius solvet relevium post mortem, etc. viz., duplicem redditum unius anni. Abbas et conventus de Malmesbury tenet unum mesuagium in f eodo in villa de Malmesbury quondam Willelmi de aula per redditum x d. Priorissa De Kyngtone tenet unum mesuagium aut duo in Langleygh imde sectam facit (ut fertur) ad dies legales tentas ibidem bis per annum. Tenentes per Consiietudines Manerii ibidem DiMIDII HiDARII Isabella Russelle vidua tenet dimidiam hidam terre in Kyngton imde messuagium cum Curtillagio continet imam acram et in duobus Clausis annexatis vii acras. Item tenet xlvi acras dimidiam terre arabilis in ii'''" Campis unde in Campo orientali in Wydenalle qxiinque acras dimidiam in iiii" particulis In occidentali parte de Barefurlong dimidiam acram In Sowarlondes ii acras In farendelle iiii acras dimidiam In Hendley iiii acras in iii'"" particulis In Smalemede dimidiam acram apud Ellenstubbe i acram In Strottefurlong iiii acras in ii""" particulis apud la naysshe iii acras in iii''"" particulis apud Culnerwall unam acram apud Byddelyate dimidiam acram [Total, 26^ acres in 19 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali in Bradfurlong iiii acras in ii"'"' particulis In orchadlondes ii acras apud Grovelondeshegge unam acram dimidiam apud la heele ii acras dimidiam In evydeen unam acram dimidiam Item ibidem iiii acras in ii''"" particulis Super Cowngroveshulle ii acras in ii*'"' particulis In Wynewodes ii acras dimidiam in ii"'"' particulis [Total, 20 acres in 12 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis xx s. Redditus xi s. 424 APPENDIX I Willelmus Necke De langley tenet dimidiam hidam terre unde mes- suagium cum Curtillagio, gardino, et pomerario continet dimidiam acram, et unum Clausum annexatum continet iiii acras iii perticatas prati. Item xiiii acras dimidiam terre prati et pasture in separali unde in australi parte tenementi sui iii acras dimidiam perticatam, In Northe- close iii acras iii perticatas, In Langcroft iii acras, In Oldelond ii acras iii perticatas. In Hetheloce ii acras. Item tenet xliii acras i perticatam terre arabile \a ii*""" Campis unde in CampK) boriali In Beerefurlong unam acram in ii*""" particulis Juxta Blakebuysshe dimidiam acram In Clandfeld In overfurlong ii acras in iii*""' particulis In Nitherfurlong unam acram dimidiam in iii*"" particulis apud Thomewell dimidiam acram In Holdeen dimidiam acram In Farendoune iiii"' acras in ii*""" particulis Super Mycheldale ii acras in iiii°' particulis In Netylmede dimidiam acram In Burymede unam acram in ii*""^ particulis In Whytelond unam acram in ii*"" particulis In Hendley imam acram dimidiam in iii''"^ particulis Super Whetehullehed dimidiam acram In Crownefurlong dimidiam acram apud Childaker unam acram in ii*"" particulis In Millefurlong ii acras in iiii"' particulis In Langdowne dimidiam acram In Shorldowne ii acras in v particulis In Walfurlong i acram In Hendley dimidiam acram [Total, 24 acres in 41 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali apud Galleaker dimidiam acram In orientali parte de haywode unam acram dimidiam in iii*"" particulis In Thyckefurlong unam acram in ii*""' particulis apud Barnardes Shave unam perticatam In Strottefurlong dimidiam acram apud lordeshulle unam acram in ii''"" particulis apud Northstock i perticatam APPENDIX I 425 apud Jacobescrosse unam acram In la Slade unam acram in ii*""' particulis apud Wecheanger dimidiam acram apud Shortcrosse dimidiam acram In Staperlond dimidiam acram In la More unam acram in ii''"= particulis Juxta Somerleas unam acram In Wydefurlong dimidiam acram In Barrefurlong dimidiam acram In Worthy dimidiam acram apud Blakelond dimidiam acram In Hangyn Clifife unam acram in ii*"" particulis apud Merlynpytte dimidiam acram Super FursehuUe i perticatam Super WhetehuU unam acram dimidiam in iii*"" particulis In Odgarston i acram in ii''"' particulis In Pesefurlong dimidiam acram In la hamme i acram in ii'"'^ particulis In Overhamme unam acram in ii''"^ particulis [Total, igl acres in 37 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis cxiii s. iiii d. Red- ditus xvii s. ix d. ob. [Four other dimidii hidarii have similar holdings.] ViRGATARII Walterus Tourney De Langley virgatarius tenet unum Mesuagium cum curtillagio continenti i perticatam et in iii clausis annexatis x acras iii perticatas. Item tenet unum Toftum cum iii clausis vocatis Jeffryes continenti- bus insimil quinque acras dimidiam. Item tenet xix acras dimidiam terre arabilis in ii*""' Campis imde in campo boriali in Barrefurlong unam acram in ii''"' particulis In Clanfeld imam acram dimidiam in iii''"" particulis Super Mycheldale unam acram in ii*""^ particulis Super Hendlye i acram in ii''"' particulis In Whytelond dimidiam acram In Boriali parte de Burymede unam acram in ii*"" particulis In australi parte eiusdem unam acram in ii*"" particulis apud Chyldaere unam acram in ii''"" particulis 426 APPENDIX I In Myllof dimidiam acram apud Whetehulhed dimidiam acram In Wallefurlong dimidiam acram In Shortdmi dimidiam acram [Total, 10 acres in 20 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali apud Galleacre imam acram in ii*"" particulis In orientali parte de Haywode dimidiam acram In Lordeshulle dimidiam acram In Thyckefurlong dimidiam acram In Strettfurlong dimidiam acram In Morefurlong miam acram in ii*"" particulis In Stapefurlong dimidiam acram apud Shortcrosse dimidiam acram In Pessefurlong dimidiam acram In la Worthy dimidiam acram In Odgarstone dimidiam acram In Whetehulle imam acram in ii""" particulis In la hamme imam acram dimidiam in iii*"™ particulis In Wecheanger dimidiam acram [Total, 9I acres in 19 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis xl s. Redditus xiiii s. viii d. ob. WUlelmus Taylour De Langley virgatarius tenet unum mesuagium et Toftum alterius virgate terre unde Curtillagium continet insimil i perticatam et in uno Clauso annexato quinque acras i perticatam. Item tenet vii acras terre prati et pasture in separali unde in Northe- cloce unam acram iii perticatas, In Oldlondes quinque acras i perti- catam. Item tenet xxx acras iii perticatas terre arabilis in ii''"" Campis unde in Campo boriali in Barrefurlong unam acram in ii*"" particulis In Clanfeld dimidiam acram in iii*"" particulis In Thornewelfurlong iii perticatas in ii''"' particulis In Mycheldale unam acram dimidiam in iii*"" particulis In Netylmede dimidiam acram In Burymede unam acram in ii'"'" particulis In Child acre unam acram i perticatam in iii''"" particulis In Okeworthe dimidiam acram APPENDIX I 427 In Myllefurlong iii perticatas In Troefurlong dimidiam acram apud Whetehulleshed unam acram dimidiam in iii"""" particulis In Wallefurlong dimidiam acram In Langdoune iii perticatas in ii''"= particulis In Shortdoune dimidiam acram Item ibidem unam acram i perticatam et in Guardeene i acram [Total, 13! acres in 28 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali apud Galleacre unam acram in ii'"'^ particulis Subtus Haywode unam acram dimidiam in iii''"' particulis apud Barnardshave unam perticatam In Strettfurlong dimidiam acram In Thyckefurlong unam acram in ii*""* particulis apud Langcrosse dimidiam acram Super LordeshuUe unam acram in ii*""' particulis apud Jacobbescrosse i acram in ii''"'' particulis In Stapulfurlong dimidiam acram In Somerleas ii acras in iiii'"' particulis In Hangyngcliffe unam acram in ii*""' particulis In Merlynpytt unam acram in ii*"" particulis In Whetehull unam acram dimidiam in iii*""' particulis In Odgarston dimidiam acram in ii*"" particulis In Wecheanger unam acram iii perticatas in iiii"' particulis In Worthe i perticatam In Pessefurlong i perticatam In la hamme unam acram dimidiam in iii*""' particulis apud Northstocke unam perticatam [Total, i6§ acres in 38 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino ii heriecta. Finis xx s. Redditus xx s. [Fifteen other virgatarii have similar holdings.] DiMiDii Virgatarii Henricus Belle tenet dimidiam virgatam terre in Langley unde mesuagium cum Curtillagio continet i perticatam et in ii*"" Clausis annexatis vii acras. Item tenet xi acras dimidiam terre arrabilis in ii''"' Campis unde in Campo boreali in Berfurlong dimidiam acram 428 APPENDIX I apud Blakebusshe dimidiam acram In Thornewell dimidiam acram In Mucheldale dimidiam acram In Whitelond unam acram in ii*"" particulis In henlee i perticatam In Burymedefurlong i perticatam In Whetehulhed dimidiam acram In Millefurlong i perticatam In la Downe unam acram i perticatam in iii''"' particulis In Overclanfeld dimidiam acram [Total, 6 acres in 14 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali in LordeshuUe iii perticatas Subtus Haywode dimidiam acram In Thickefurlong dimidiam acram In Stretfurlong i perticatam In Churchewaiefurlong dimidiam acram In la More unam acram in ii''"' particulis In la Hamme i perticatam In Overhamme dimidiam acram In WhetehuU dimidiam acram In Berfurlong i perticatam In Hangcliff dimidiam acram [Total, 52 acres in 12 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis xx s. Redditus vi s. ii d. ob. Robertus Coke De Langley dimidius virgatarius tenet unam mesua- gium cum Curtillagio continentem dimidiam acram et unum Clausum annexatum continens iiu" acras dimidiam. Item tenet unum Clausum pasture apud Northcloce continens ii acras separales. Item tenet xii acras terra arabilis in ii*""* Campis unde in Campo boriaU apud Barrefurlong unam acram in ii*""' particulis In Clanfelde unam acram in ii''"' particulis Super Mucheldale dimidiam acram In Henlee dimidiam acram in ii*"" particulis In Burymede iii perticatas in ii*"" particulis In Millefurlong dimidiam acram APPENDIX I 429 In Wallefurlong dimidiam acram In Croefurlong dimidiam acram In Langdoune i perticatam Subtus Langdoune i perticatam In Shortdoune dimidiam acram [Total, 65 acres in 15 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali apud Galleacre dimidiam acram Super Lordeshulle i perticatam Subtus Haywode iii perticatas in ii''"* particulis apud Fordesyate dimidiam acram In Thyckefurlong dimidiam acram In Strottefurlong i perticatam In la More dimidiam acram In la hamme iii perticatas Super Whetehulle dimidiam acram In Odgarstone unam perticatam In pessefurlong dimidiam acram In Beerfurlong i perticatam In Furcyhulle i perticatam [Total, 5f acres in 14 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis xx s. Redditus vi s. ii d. ob. [Ten other dimidii virgatarii have similar holdings.] Robertus Hagges tenet unum Cotagium cum Curtillagio in Kyng- ton continenti dimidiam acram. Item tenet Toftum i placee terre in orientali parte Cotagii continen- tis unam perticatam. Item tenet iii acras terre arabilis in ii''"^ Campis unde in Campo orientali Super Manneshulle vmam acram dimidiam Et in Campo occidentali in Ruydone imam acram dimidiam. Finis iii s. iiii d. Redditus ii s. vi d. Johannes Purymane, Paynter, tenet unum Cotagium cum Curtillagio in Langley continenti dimidiam acram et i hammam prati vocatam Mullehamme continentem i perticatam dimidiam cum ii Meerys annexatis in boriali Campo continentibus iii perticatas. Item tenet iii acras dimidiam terre arrabilis in eodem Campo in v particulis in furlongo vocato Clanfeld. 43 O APPENDIX I Item tenet annuatim ii plaustra in bosco domini apud Haywode in emendatione tenure predicte. . . . Finis . Redditus v s. B. EXTRACTS FROM A SURVEY OF HANDBOROUGH, OXFORDSHIRE Land Revenue, Misc. Bk. 224, ff. 96-145. 4 James I Comitatus Oxoniae. Manerium de Hanberough. Superoisus Manerii predicti factus die Julii Anno regni domini nostri Jacobi Dei gratia Anglie Scotie Francie et Hibernie Regis fidei defensoris, etc., viz., Anglie Francie et Hibernie Quarto et Scotie xxxLx, per Henricum Lee prenobilis garterii militem, Franciscum Stonerd, militem, Johanem Herche, Arm., et Johanem Herch, Jun., gen., vir- tute Comissionis dicti domini Regis extra Scacarrium suum eis et aliis directe, super sacrum Tenentium ibidem, viz., Richardi slutter, Jun., Johanis Wellr, Johanis Ford, Richardi Deane, Henrici Home, Thome Lymborough, Richardi Rowland, Galfridi Hischman, Johanis Salter, Stephani Rugs, Rogeri Brooks, WUlielmi Wrighte, Richardi Fletcher, Qui dicunt super sacrum suum quod LiBERi Tenentes' Rogerus Brooke Tenet libere per copiam datam quinto die De- cembris Anno Regine Elizabethe xl™° certas terras iacentes iuxta sil- vam vocatam Pindsley Coppice, viz., Terram arabilem vocatam le Sarte iacentem iuxta Pinsley Coppice per estimationem iiii acras Boscum in Pinsley Coppice vocatum a hedge acre per estimationem i acram Habendas prefato Rogero et heredibus suis nuper procreaturis se- cundum consuetudinem Manerii predicti. Redditus per annum V d. ob., relievum x d. Henricus Salter Tenet libere per copiam datam xxiiii*" die Marcii Anno Regine Elizabethe xliiii'" imam parcellam prati vocatam Ferretts meade, unam parcellam pasture vocatam Fulwell, et unam parcellam terre vocatam le Sartes nuper Willielmi Salter, patris sui, viz., parcellam prati in prato vocato Ferretts Meade per estimationem iii acras ii rodas * In the manuscript this rubric is in the margin. APPENDIX I 431 parcellam pasture vocatam Fulwell iuxta Pindsley Coppice per es- timationcm iii rodas parcellam terre arabilis vocatam le Sartes in Myllfcld per estima- tionem i acram ii rodas Habendas sibi et heredibus suis nuper jirocreaturis secundum con- suetudiiiem Manerii. Redditus per annum xii d. q., relievum xii d. q. Jacobus Woldrid^e Tenet libere \wx Copiam datam x.\" die Julii Anno Uei^ine IClizabethe xliii" unum mesuanium sive Tenemcntum et unam clausuram eideni adiacentem in MandlDoroughe cum pertinen- tihus ex sursumreddiUi (lalfridi London, viz., Donium miinsionalem iiii spaciorum, horreum iii spaciorum, unum slabuluni cum aliis le outhouse iii sjjaciorum, Coquinam ii spacio- rum, gardinum, iiomarium, el 'Curtilagium, cum parva Clausa adiaeenli, per estimaliunem i acram ii rodas Habendas sibi et heredibus suis secundum consuetudinem manerii. Redditus per annum xvid., relievum iis. viiid. Thomas Martyn Tenet libere jht Copiam datam xiiii die Martii Anno Regis Kegine Elizabethe xxxix" unum Colagium et unam peciam terre vocatam a garden plott cum perlinentibus vocatas Smartes ac dimidiam acram terre arrabilis iacenlem in Mylfeild ex sursumredditu Ricardi Richardson, viz., Domum mansionalem v spaciorum, horreum, et stabulum, et gardi- num, per estimationcm i rodam 'I'erram arrabilem in Myllfeilde per estimationcm ii rodas Habendas sibi et heredibus imperpetuum secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum iii d. Relievum vi d. Georgiua Cole, gen., Tenet per Copiam datam die Anno unum Cotagium vocatum Pynes, \\y.., Domum miuisionalem iiii spaciorum, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, per estimationcm iii rodas CUiusam i)asture Nocatam Irenmongers i)er estiniationem ii acras Duo Cotagia vocata Clarkes v spaciorum, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, per estimationcm ii rodas Chiusam pasture ailiacentem ii rodas Alium Cotagium ii spaciorum, gardinum, et Curtilagium, per estima- tioncm ii rodas CUiusam terre arabilis vocatam Ridinges per estimationcm vii acras Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per annum xxiii d. ob. q. Relie\um duplex redditus. 432 APPENDIX I Heredes Martini Culpeper, Militis, Clamant tenere libere per Co- piam non ostensam certas terras in Hanborough, viz., Domum mansionalem viii spaciorum, gardinum, cum clausa adia- centi, per estimationem ii acras Terram arrabilem in le Hide vocatam Hutchins Hilles per estima- tionem viii acras Clausam arrabilem vocatam Old Close per estimationem vi acras Domum mansionalem vocatam Trumplettes ii spaciorum, gardinum, per estimationem . i rodam Habendas sibi et heredibus suis secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum ii s. v d. ob. Relievum duplex redditus. [There are several other similar freeholds.] CUSTUMARII Heredes Mjartini Culpeper, Militis, Tenent per copiam — datam — die — Anno regis — unum mesuagium et unam virgatam terra cum pertinentibus in Hanborowe, viz., Domum mansionalem ii spaciorum, unum horreum ii spaciorum, gardinum, et Curtilagium, cum clausa adiacenti, per estima- tionem iiii acras Clausam terre arabilis vocatam Keenes per estimationem vi acras Terram arabUem in Southfeild per estimationem x acras Terram arabilem i^ Mylfeild per estimationem x acras Terram arabilem in Myddlefeild per estimationem viii acras Pratum in Southmeade per estimationem i acram Pratum in Nyemeade per estimationem i acram Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem i acram Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem ii rodas Communiam pasture ut supra Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum vs. Finis duplex redditus. Harrietum . Annualis valor dimittendus . Ricardus Weller Tenet per Copiam ut dicitur sed non ostensam unum mesuagium et dimidiam virgatam terre cum pertinentibus, viz., Domum mansionalem iii spaciorum, unum horreum iii spaciorum, Coquinam ii spaciorum, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, per estimationem ii rodas Terram arabilem in le Myddle feild per estimationem i acram i rodam APPENDIX I 433 Terram arrabilem in le South feild per estimationem iii acras ii rodas Terram arabilem in le Myllfield per estimationem i rodam Pratum in Gotland Meade per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Cheny Weare Meade per estimationem ii rodas Communiam pasture ut supra Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum iiii s. vi d. Finis duplex redditus. Harrietum . Annualis valor dimittendus — . Galfridus Hitchman Tenet per Copiam datam xvii die Novembris Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xxii" unum messuagium et dimidiam unius virgate Terre cum pertinentibus nuper Elizabethe Hitchman, viz., Domum mansionalem vi spaciorum, horreum iiii spaciorum, i stabulum i spacii, pomarium, gardinum, et le backside, per estima- tionem i rodam Clausam pasture domui adiacentem per estimationem i acram Terram arrabilem in Myddle Feild per estimationem V acras dimidiam Terram arrabilem in South Feild per estimationem v acras Terram arrabilem in Myll Feild per estimationem v acras Pratum vocatum Stone Acre per estimationem i acram Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem i acram Communiam pasture pro xxx ovibus Habendas sibi et heredibus suis secundiun Consuetudinem man- erii per Redditvun per annum ii s. vi d. Finis v s. Herrietum una vacca. Servicium, etc. Annualis valor dimittendus . Johannes Weller Tenet per Copiam datam xii° die Septembris Anno Regni Regis nunc Jacobi AngUe Francie et Hibemie Regis iii" et Scotie xxxix" imum mesuagium sive Tenementum et duas Clausuras et dimidiam virgatam terre cum pertinentibus ex sursumredditu Mar- tini Vamey, viz., Domum mansionalem ii spaciorum, unum horreum ii spaciorum, gardinmn, et Curtilagium, per estimationem i rodam Clausam pasture vocatam Peakes per estimationem i acram ii rodas Clausam terre arrabilis vocatam Peakes per estimationem i acram ii rodas 434 APPENDIX I Terrain arrabilem in le Myddlefeild per estimationem iii acras ii rodas Terram arrabilem in le Myllefeild per estimationem iii acras Terram arrabilem in le Southfeild per estimationem iii acras iii rodas Pratum in Southmead per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Nyemead per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem i swathe Communiam pasture ut supra Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Red- ditus per Annum ii s. vi d. Finis duplex redditus. Harrietum opti- mum averium. Annualis valor dimittendus iiii Ii. Johannes Bates, Clericus, Tenet per Copiam datam xxiiii*" die Marcii Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xxxix" unum mesuagium sive Tenemen- tum et dimidiam virgatam terre cum omnibus pertinentibus ex sursum- redditu Ricardi Sampson filii et heredis Roberti Sampson, viz., Domum mansionalem iii spaciorum, unum horreum ii spaciorum, unum stabulum i spacii, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, per estimationem ii rodas Clausam pasture domui adiacentem ii acras Terram arrabilem in Myddlefeild per estimationem iii acras ii rodas Terram arrabilem in Southfeild per estimationem iii acras ii rodas Terram arrabilem in Myllfeild per estimationem iii acras Pratum in Southmeade per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Nyemeade per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem i rodam Communiam pasture pro omnibus Averiis in omnibus Communiis, etc. Habendas prefato Johanni Bates et heredibus suis imperpetuum secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum iis. vid. Finis duplex redditus. Herrietum optimum averium. Annualis valor dimittendus iiii Ii. Ricardus Stutter, junior, Tenet per Copiam datam xvi*° die Martii Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xliii" unum Tenementum et unam vir- APPENDIX- 1 435 gatam terre cum omnibus pratis, pascuis, et pasturis eidem pertinenti- bus cum pertinentibus et alium Tenementum cum dimidia virgata terre cum pratis, pascuis, et pasturis eidem pertinentibus, viz., Domum mansionalem xii spaciorum, unum horreum iii spaciorum, unum stabulum iii spaciorum, unum le Shepehouse iii spaciorum, gardinum, ii pomaria, et Curtilagium, per estimationem i acram Clausam pasture vocatam le Come Close cum alia clausa adiacenti vocata Heathfield per estimationem x acras Terram arabilem in le Southfeild per estimationem x acras Terram arabilem in le Myddlefeild per estimationem x acras Terram arabilem in le Myllfeild per estimationem x acras Pratum in Southmeade et Nyemeade per estimationem iii acras Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem i acram ii rodas Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem iii rodas Alium domum mansionalem iii spaciorum cum gardino et pomario in occupatione Johannis HoUoway per estimationem ii rodas Communiam pasture pro omnibus averiis in Einsham heath et Kinges Heath Habendas prefato Ricardo et heredibus suis imperpetuum secimdum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum vii s. vi d. Harrietum optimum averium. Finis duplex redditus. Annualis valor dimitten- dus X Ii. Rogerus Brooke Tenet per Copiam datam quinto die Decembris Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xl"" unum Mesuagium, unum horreum, unum pomarium, unum clausum, unum gardinum, cum omnibus edifi- ciis eidem mesuagio pertinentibus, et unam virgatam terre in Handbor- oughe ex sursumredditu Willelmi Watson et Isabelle uoris exius, viz., Domum mansionalem vi spaciorum, ii horrea vi spaciorum, coqui- nam iii spaciorum, stabulum i spacii, unum shepehouse iiii spacio- rum, gardinuiti, pomarium, et Curtilagium, cum parva Clausa adiacenti, per estimationem iii acras Duas clausas pasture vocatas Heath Closes per estimationem iiii acras Terram arrabilem in Southfeilde per estimationem xi acras i rodam Terram brueriam ibidem per estimationem ii rodas Terram arrabilem in Myllfeild per estimationem vi acras i rodam Terram leazuram in Myllfeild per estimationem i acram Terram arrabilem in Myddlefield per estimationem vi acras Pratiun in Southmeade per estimationem i acram 436 APPENDIX I Pratum in Nyemeade per estimationem i acram Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem i acram Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem ii rodas Communiam pasture in omnibus Campis, etc. Habendas prefato Rogero Brooke et heredibus suis imperpetuum secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per annum v s. Finis X s. Harrietum optimum averium. Annualis valor dimittendus vi li. [Several other customary tenants hold similar virgates or half- virgates.] Terra Dominicalis per Copiam Rogerus Legg Tenet per copiam datam die Anno Regis unam acram et unam rodam terre arabilis et unum rodam prati que sunt terre dominicales et vulgariter appellantur Buryland, viz., Terram arabilem in Myddlefeild per estimationem dimidiam acram Terram arabilem in Southfeild per estimationem i rodam Pratum in bysouth et meadhey per estimationem dimidiam acram Terram de Leyland in le Bushyehide per estimationem i rodam Terram de ley iuxta domum predictum per estimationem i rodam Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per annum iis. iiid. Finis duplex redditus. Annualis valor dimittendus . Heredes Stephani Culpeper Tenent per copiam datam die anno Regis quatuor acras terre arrabilis et imam acram prati que sunt terre dominicales et vulgariter appellantur Buryland, viz., Terram arabilem in Southfeild per estimationem i acram Terram arabilem in le hide per estimationem i acram Pratum in Bysouth per estimationem i acram Pratum in Meadhay per estimationem i acram Terram leazuram in bushiehide per estimationem i acram Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum ix s. Que quidem premisse similiter clamantur per heredes Martini Culpeper. Ricardus Lous Tenet per Copiam datam xiii" die Marcii Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xxiu" octodecim acres terre ari-abUis et tres acras prati que sunt terre dominicales et vulgariter appellantur Bury- land, viz., Terram arrabilem in le hide per estimationem xiii acras Terram arrabilem in le Myddlefeild per estimationem i acram APPENDIX I 437 Terram arrabilem in le Southfeild per estimationem iiii acras Pratum in Meadhay per estimationem iii acras Pratum in Bysouth per estimationem iii acras Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per annum xxvii s. Finis duplex redditus. Annualis valor dimittendus xl s. [There are several other lessees of demesne lands. At the end of the survey are the signatures of the jurors.] C. SUMMARIES OF TUDOR AND JACOBEAN SURVEYS WHICH ILLUSTRATE NORMAL TWO- AND THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Areas are In acres unless otherwise specified. Messuages are indicated by m., virgates by virg., cottages by cott., tenements by tent., and gardens by gard. Brailes, Upper and Nether, Warwickshire Land Rev., M. B. 185, ff. 181-229. 5 Jas. I Arable in the Common Meadow Open Common Fields North South field field Enclosed North South "Leiset "Leiset Upper Nether Custumarii {Upper Brailes) Unspec. Pasture field field hades" hades" Md. Md. Thos. Baldwyn,' m., 2 virg. if . . 12 12 i\ i\ J i Margar. Napton, m., i virg. i ■ ■ 5 4 ¥ i i i Marion Warde, m., 2 virg. .1 ^ 14 14 i^ i if i J Roger Marshall, m., i virg. .1 . . 4 41 li i f Dorothea NicoUs, m., 2 virg. i f 10 9 3 ij 5 ij Custumarii (Nether Brailes) Thos. Bishopp, m., 2 virg. . . i Ed. Walker, m., i virg. ... i Serack Ockley, m., i virg. . i Wm. Gardner, m., 2 virg.. . i Ric. RymeU, m., i virg i j There are many similar holdings. " Lotted ground " in "le heath ' Gallow hiU II 9 3 2 2 2 6 7 4 4 I I 8 7 3 2 I I 12 12 4 4 2 2 7 6 3l 2| I I 1 Baldwyn has " communia pasture in quibusdam pasturis lacentibus in upper brailes vocatis . . Inine pastures named] pro viii averiis, v equis, iiii*^ ovibus." Other tenants fare proportionally. 438 APPENDIX I Shipton-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire Land Rev., M. B. 189, ff. 96-100. Custumarii Enclosed Thos. Bradshaw, m., 2 virg 6 Eliz. Gybbons, m., 3 virg gj Thos. Altofte, m., [?] virg 3 John Whytinge, m., 2 virg 3 John Harris, m., 2 virg f Michael Hucks, m., 3 nocate 2 Thos. Hucks, m., i J virg if Henry Parrotte, m., 2 virg i Rich. Canburye, m., i virg i Rob't. Sell als. Taylor, m., | virg. . . 3 There are four other copyholds. 0. 6 Edw. VI Arable in the Open Common Fields East field West field Common Meadow 44 35 A\ 40 66 40 60 II 7l 46 40 3§ 42 39 4 20 19 li 32 22 6 30 30 6 24 17 17 8 ♦:, Charlton Abbots, Gloucestershire (in the Cotswolds) Exch. K. R., M. B. 39, £E. 166-170. [Edw. VI] Arable in the Open Common Fields Common Copyholders Pastura Separalls West field East field Meadow Jac. , m., cott., I virg. ... 2 ferrundells ' 24 24 9 Edm. Copping, m., i virg i ferrundell 24 24 9 Rog. Drewe, m., i virg J acre 24 24 9 Katerina Drewe, m., t virg. . . i ferrundell 24 24 9 Wm. Diche, m., I virg J acre 24 24 9 Mariana Bedell, m., i virg. ... § acre, i ferrundell 3 3 This is a complete list of the copyholders. They all have stinted pasture, e.g., " pro c bidentibus, xii animalibus, ii equis." Weston Birt, Gloucestershire (in the Cotswolds) Rents. & Survs., Portf. 2/46, f. 150. i Edw. VI Arable in the Open Common Fields Common Copyholders Enclosed North field Campus Austrahs Meadow Hen. Parker, m i 21 21 J Thos. Drewe, m., i virg i 21 21 \ Jo. Redford, m., i virg i 28J 29I Thos. Cirtle, m., i virg i 20 17 J Jo. Tyler, 3 m., 2 virg 2 40 39 if Clerk, m i 8 7 \ Wm. Holboroughe, 4 m., 2 virg 12 30 20 | A complete list. * The ferrundells are located, e.g., *' ad partem australem ecclesie," and obviously constitute the village closes. APPENDIX I 439 South Stoke, Somerset Land Rev., M. B. 225, ff. 150-159. 6 Jas. I Enclosed Arable in the Open , . A ^ Common Fields Copyholdeis Arab. Md. Past. Unspec. East field West field Wm. Hedges, m zf i 4I . . 14 14 Wm. Mercer, m j 3 sJ 5J 25 29 Alice Willis, m 3i 5 16 16 John Dagger, m 2\ 1 2 4§ 6 6 Joane Browne, m i 3 10 i wood 20 20 Laurence Smythe, m. . | 4 loj pf 3 6 J John Awburd, m \ i J 7 . . 14 16 Editha Reade, m., i yearde of land 3 35 7! . . 16 20 Thos. Hudd, m., J yearde of land 7 3 izf .. 9 20 GiLLINGHAM, DOSSET Land R^v., M. B. 214, £f. 1-47. 6 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields Custumarii Dorothie Dirdoe, m. Jo. Muffins, m. . . . Wm. Helmes, m. . Geo. Jukes, 2 m. . Wm. Bowles, m. . Ric. Cooke, 2 m. . Wm. Sheppard, m. Joan Mountier, m. The copyholders have " common in the forest.* Arab. Enclosed Md.i Past. South field North or Woodhouse field Madgeston Common field Meadow i 7§ 6 4 2 i I 2 4 3 i II 10 2 2i 2i 12J 3 6 II 1 4 sf 7 8i 2i 2 perches i 3 S . . I and 4 gates I ii 5 II 10 I li and 8 gates I 3 7i 22 12 A\ 1 Some of the meadow was probably open. The usual phrase is, e.g., " one meadowe called broade meade 4 acres." 440 APPENDIX I Wellow, Isle op Wight Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 359, ff. 26-36. 6 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields Custumarii Enclosed East field West field Elenora Herring, m 3 J 5J loj Agnes Hellier, m 4f $\ 9 Robt. Gopard, m 3 2 s John Bull, m Sf 5I 2 Thos. Gillett, cott if } Jo. Goodall, m 21 6 8j David Dore, m 4 7 10 Thos. Dore, m 5! 4^ 3 Jo. Squib, m 4J 7 7 Ric. Bigger, m 3 ^\ 11 Thos. Urrye, m 4J 8 8 Ric. Fricket, m if 7 12 Jo. Goodale, m ij 8 13 Jo. Cooke, m 3i 8 8| Ed. Lancham, m 21 7 9J Robt. Powell, m 35 5 13J Thos. Bartlett, m Si 13' A complete list of copyholders. They all haye stinted common for sheep in the common of WeUow. HUMBERSTON, LiNCOLNSHIKE Land Rev., M. B. 256, ff. 272-285. 5 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields , ^ s Common Liberi Tenentes > Enclosed East field West field Meadow Vincent Sheffeld, m 3 30 30 28 Wm. Nutsey, m 9 20 20 22^ Mich. Spencer, m 2\ 16 16 11 Rich. Allenson, m 4 . 7 6 11 j Thos. Hawnby, m J 9 7J 2 Wm. Wentworth, m § 14 14 8 Saml. Waterhouse, m i 30 30 5 Wm. Webster, m., 3 cott 10^ 44 44 17 Eliz. Dickinson, m j 14 16 19^ Wm. Wraye i 10 10 12 Some of the tenants have stinted common of pasture in "le Southe marshe." 1 " In communibus campis." * There are no copyholders. APPENDIX I 441 Alvingham, Lincolnshire Land Rev., M. B. 265, ff. 1-13. 1608 Arable in the Open Common Fields Enclosed > * . Common Lessees 1 Md. and Past. Eastlield West field Meadow Wm. Hennage, Esq., m., cott 30 35 35 ..^ Ric. Horsard, m 45 30 30 15 Jo. Yarburghe, cott 11 5 s Ric. Mackerell, m 3 16 16 6 Abm. Blainchard, m 4 20 20 8 Wm. Horford,' m 12 26 30 Wm. Horford, 2 cott i J 3 3 Bower Henton, a Decsenna of Martock, Somerset Land Rev., M. B. 203, ff. 306-315. 1-2 Philip and Mary Arable in the Open Common Fields Enclosed Campus Campus Campus Common Custumarii Arab. Fast. Australis Orientalis Occidentalis Meadow Hugo Geale, m i 75 ' 6 6 6 3I John Prest, m 2I 13 12 I2j loj sJ John Gawller, m \ iqj * 12 12 11 6j Margareta Borow, m 3! 11 8J 7 71 3! Alicia Adams, m 2 6' 11 J 9 ^\ 41 Johes. Gele, m \ g' 6 sf si 41 Alicia Punfolde, m f 16J « loj 9 8 4! Willielmus Genes, m 5 7i 6J 8 7 4 Hugo Poole, m li 8 9 8i 8 4 Jo. Symond, m i i6i ' sJ 5! s* 4f There are nineteen similar holdings. Tenants have unstinted common of pasture in Whetmore. J There are no copyholders. * 2 J "de novo incluse." " 4I "de novo induse.'' 2 "Tythe haye in 80 acres." » 3 "in le estfild." ' 12 "in le Southefilde." 8 " De novo incluse." 442 APPENDIX I HiNTON St. Mary, Dorset Land Rev., M. B. 241, ff. 8413. [Eliz.] Arable in the Open Common Fields Enclosed jjorth South West Common Copyholders Fast. Md. or Past. field field field Meadow Geo. Yonge, m 4 16 15 7J io| si Ric. and Wm. Shorte, 2 m., I cott 38 14J 12 13 7 Widow Stacye, cott . . 2 4! 2 i Thos. Lambert, cott 4! . . . . 2 4 i Margaret Webb, 2 m 6 13 11 11 11 3^ Alice and Rich. Cowpe, cott. 4 i . . 3I Isabell Gancer, cott 11 Elene More, m 3 11 4J 5 2 2 Robt. Stacye, m 7J 3J 5 4J i Wm. Castleman and Jo. Gardyner, m 11 7 10 6 67 Ric. and Thos. Castleman, m. .. 16J 5 11 8 2^ There are fifteen other copyholds. Each copyholder has " communem in the fylds for his cattell and shepe." AsHTON Keynes, Wiltshire Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 422, 5. 48-79. i Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields Enclosed East North West- Common Custumarii Arab. Past. field field ham Meadow Ant. Ferres, m., I virg ij 18 12 ii 16 Johanna Archard, m., i virg. i 12 3 10 9 f Jo. Cove, m., i virg J 17 8 8 7 7 M. Chapperlyn, m., i virg. . 4J 5 15 11 8 z| Wm. Clyfiord, m., I virg 368 loj 8 13I Jo. Rowley, m., \ virg J .. .. .. 5 3 Ric. Sawyer, m., i virg J 2J 6 3J 4I 3 Joanna Syninge, m., i virg. .1 6 . . 6 10 i Geo. Androwes, m., i virg. .2 . . gf 6i 7 ij Benetta George, m., J virg.. . i 2 7i si 4I i Ellena Hardinge, m., i virg. . 3 7 6 7 10 if Jo. Hardinge, m., i virg. ... 2 6 7 7 10 2 There are several other copyholders and several freeholders. The copyholders have unstmted common of pasture in the common fields, the common meadows, and the forest of Braydon. APPENDIX I 443 Ansty, Hampshire Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, flf. 67-76. 10 Hen. VI Arable in the Open Common In . '-^ Tenants Netherstrete South field Middel field Edwatte Rithe, 10 acres past- ure (4) ' 5 3(4) Alii) Jo. Ansty, m f (2) i (2) Thos. Cochman, m i (3) i (2) Robt. Kyng, 2 m., toft, croft. . . i 2I (3) if (4) Phil. Gredare, m i (2) 4I (7) 4 (8) Staph. Dyere, m 3 41 (7) z\ is) Jo. Tortyngton, toft li ipi (?) 8(11) Wm. Sawyer, m., croft 3^(5) 3 (7) Wm. Asselot, toft i i (r) if (4) Wm. WoUane 4(3) jf (s) Jo. Godard, toft i 1(1) 1H2) Jo. Clerk, m., toft., garden ij 7f (9) 9? (n) Jo. Ken, 3 m., 4 gardens, toft, croft, together containing 7! acres Si (s) 12I (18) 18(27) Fields Ea3t field 3H6) Hi) 2(3) 4(8) 4i(4) 2(4) iif (14) 4(9) if(s) 1(1) I2i(ii) i8i (31) Alfriston, Sussex Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, ff. 257J-266. 11 Hen. VI Arable in the Open Common Fields Copyholders North leyne Middil leyne South leyne John Syger, cott., J wista 3? (6) ' 2f (6) 2 (4) Rich. Man, tent., \ wista 2 (3) 3 (4) 2§ (4) John Bydon, tent., i wista 6f (9) 5 (6) 6| (7) Simon Benet, tent., i wista $2(7) sf (7) sf (8) Thos. Smyth, tent., \ wista 2f (5) 2! (s) 3 (s) Philip Younge, tent., i wista 6f (8) si (6) 6f (10) Demesne at farm Rich. Man, J wista 3i (?) 2|(6) 2f (4) Rich. Chukke, J wista 3i (7) 2H6) 2f (7) This is a complete list of the wistae, but there were several cottagers. > The figures in parentheses indicate the number of parcels. Common Meadow 444 APPENDIX I Salford, Bedfordshire. All Souls Typus CoUegii, Map of 1595 Tenants of the College Grounds Enclosed Heniy House 17J Widow Crowley s Mr. Francklinge loj Widow Perse 4 Ric. Odell 5 Robt. Cowper 2j Robt. Woodwarde. . . 11 j The Miller Robt. Freeman Jo. Crouche Wm. Briar 2 j Martha Langford . . . 2721 * Freeholders The Vicar 4i Thos. Pedder 4 Edw. Butterfield \ Widow Letten A complete list. Arable in the Open Common Fields Brook field Middle field Wood field ISH28) 24H33) 9(11) 11(19) 9H18) l8|(22) 22\ (31) 33i (39) Si (18) Hi (18) 61 (13) I2§ (22) 94(13) 9(11) 21 (31) ' I1H17) 191 (27) 3°i (47) io§ (24) i(23) i (14) ^(2) Hi) i4(4) 6i (17) ii(3) 4i (10) 2(4) If (3) 2H3) sHi2) ii(3) Hi) ij(4) (2) 7f(i2) 2(3) 2(S) H2) ' Meadow in the Fields " 4J 4i 9i 4i 4i Ah i\ 24 ' Pasture and Lea Ground " 6f i2i 16 24f 13 I2i 4 4f Weltord, Northamptonshire (two manors) Bodl., Gough MS., Northants. 2. 1602 (XVIII cen. copy) Arable in the Open Common Fields Enclosed Hemplow field Middle field Abbey field Manor 0} Wm. Saunders Wm. Saunders, Gent., demesne. "Tenants at Will" Mary Symes, m., 2^ virg Randall Wilkinson, m., 2 virg. . Ric. Willis, m., i J virg Thos. Brett, m., if virg Robt. Eyle, m., i virg Manor of the Queen, formerly of Sulby Monastery " The Queen's Patentees " Roger Brewster, m., 3J virg. . Katherine Watts, m., i virg. . Francis Vanse, m., ij virg. . . Ed. Horton, m., i virg '* Ancient Freeholders " Wm. Sturgis, m., i virg Robt. Moore, 2 m., i J virg. . . Jo. Cox, m., I virg Theron Symes, m., f virg. . . . Thos. Noble, m., \ virg 4 large closes 77f 83i i i3i iif i lof i3f I 9 9i 1 4 lof lof i S si I Monastery 3 4 i6f 24i i 4f S i 8 8f i 8i 7f Sf Si i 8i 9 i 4f Ah if 3i 79I 16 13 9 loi 6 2Ai sf 6f 8i 4i 8f 7f Ah all< There are other tenants of each class. The strips of meadow in the fields have been omitted in 1 The figures in parentheses indicate the number of parcels. 2 Of this, 160} acres are arable and lie mainly in Middle field, perhaps unenclosed. 3 " Meadow and pasture in the fields." APPENDIX I 445 n r^ M r^ M w .9 w ^ 1^ VI S s pq § jg^ iil« rtlc* hIn c >^ WWW 61 ^- s o ^ s S I g .9 ^ ^ o 1-1 rO rO fO H (N CO : .a bo •^ S. 1_. Bt) nW H|c« m^ Hlw Hn g a s a o !tl .9 8^1 PQ a 2 Ji HiN Ulfl >2 o u q 2 VI (M •* hN" rtl« nW CO Tf ■* g?. S mI-« rtlN fe'« S "C 2y3 Ol 5 & lu^ . .^c* Mh# ^N .9 M l/^ lO « lO o HN He* fh^ hin hm HN Hn HW Hm Hn H« «N nl^ Hw o bi -q ^ hi > :a a ?? o " -H §• I § ^ a I a B 3 ^ II s ca ■ i t3 -a S S ^ ^ U ^ w o u H ^ < § H 446 APPENDIX I Elloughton, Yorkshire Land Rev., M. B. 229, ff. 74-86. 6 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields Enclosed Copyholders Franc. Scarfe, m., 3 cott. . . Wm. CarhiU, m., cott \ Jo. Simpson, m 6 Jane Bacon, m i Peter Bower, m Hamond Kelde, m., 4 ox- gangs Thos. Simpson, m., 2 oxgs. . Rich. Bentlye, 4 cott., 2 oxgs. Robt. Carlille, ij oxgs. . . . Wm. Kirke, cott., § oxg. . . Francis Thorley, i oxg. . . . There are many other holdings, all smaller than li oxgangs, draught, 2 kine, and i yonge beast." Southeast Middle ' CommoD field field Milne field Meadow ^ 10 8 10 8 IS 12 IS 12 10 8 10 8 7l 6 1\ 6 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 S 4 s 4 5 4 s 4 3i 3 i\ 3 li I li I 2\ 2 4 2 Each oxgang has common '• for i iNGtETON, Durham Land Rev., M. B. 192, fit. 166-18. 5 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields Tenants Enclosed fjorth or East South Common " ex Litteris Fatentibus " Arab. Md. Rigg field field field Meadow Robt. Shawe, tent ij 5 7 11 8 3 Geo. Marley, tent I if 4 6 4I 2 Barth. Home, tent f if 35 6 5I i\ Pet. Marley, tent J 2§ 11 ^l ^\ 21 Geo. Marley, tent i . . 6 5! 5^ 2j Milo Waide, tent f 3 6 6 5 i Pet. Dixon, tent i 3i 6 sJ 3 2J Jo. Waide, tent \ i\ 6 sh 3 21 Wm. Simpson, J tenf. f 2 2J 5 5 i Robt. Paverell, J tent f 2 2J 5 5 i Edw. Middleton, tent 31 . . 45 5 J 4^ if A complete list of patentees. There are freeholders, but no copyholders. The patentees have stinted pasture in " le town pasture" (also once called "le towne feilds ") and in "le Faughs." 1 These acres are " on the salt marsh." APPENDIX I 447 w o Ah 11 W 5 pq § o2 > a« u « 1 a| .3 mS ■§2 ■HTj aTS oo O CO ^ fO 00 O VO ^ ^ t^ M ^O ^ •a a a > o m g S IS « =1 ,„- Sufi s d ^ o M gS ^ •* o >« K2 -o ^ O * S2 O 1^ n (2 I 6 i> I— > I— > as > a PL4 1* ll3 g w g d rt'O K^S Q. o* o 1 rS ^g £^"3 H tri (S P f^ H O S nh* -(In H|N PM ■^ to N VO lO Ah pT O I I s'S be oi a cs ■— ■ o u u o "■ < D 448 APPENDIX I <3S 3 1 t-* !?2 g*i w ,£! s 3« u > p< 2" T3 'i'l s S^ l-I M as • ?^ Ph en la . I* |3 • S W 04^ ^2 CON -^cof^JOoO O O I O H OO « ^2 ^looovo O CO'OOO o o . lO wi -^ -^ ^ "S g • '=' E B (4 '^ -4-1 in .i+jq • dol3.Sl3|a : B s «- N > O •a'S" ca 3 «S a jd ^^ o Wo !•§ 2 P p J3 -fl < bn o n ■2 ■■3 s a s ■§ .a I I I I J " J s s s _„- d I i .2 a 9 a ■S 2 I I -S :! 1 3 * ^ 3 -E § o APPENDIX I 449 o- S -9 oi. -i o H O o §2 :Ss .-22 IP VO (O O vo ^ «^ O TO gS "5 o « oo »0 O* « ITS 0< C4 c c c ^ n c4 ed ra a a •3 S a 1^ -I o n o "^ P 00 S2 82 •a a £ -K K S- .3- "5 IM ■ ■ - - II " a a a « 00 ♦-< jy M r- a a a -^ .- as a '^ •! g '^ « .6 ^ ^ .S ^ N .H 4SO APPENDIX II APPENDIX II EVIDENCE, LARGELY EARLY, BEARING UPON THE EXTENT OF THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM Township Chalgrave Dean Flitwick Flitwick Hinwick Houghton Regis SouthiU Tebworth Toddington (" cum Hare est una villa Feudal Aids, i. 21) Bedfordshire. Two-field Townships Description Grant of 7J acres in 6 parcels in uno campo and 6i acres in 5 parcels in alto campo. Grant of 3 acres in 4 parcels in campo del West and 3 acres in 4 parcels in campo del Est} Grant of a messuage, a croft, and 4 acres of arable, of which " due acre iacent in Wdefeld et due in campis versus Scelton." * Grant of " unam acram in campo de Flittewic cuius dimidia acra iacet in Rugweif uriong in campo del Est et altera iacet in campo de West." ' Survey. Each tenant's arable is divided almost equally between East field and West field.' Grant of " duas perticatas terre, viz., unam perticatam terre in campo orientali super Watterlonde et unam perticatam terre in campo occidental! super RavenesweUe."' Grant of a manse, a croft of 2 acres, and a half-virgate of demesne comprising 8 acres in 3 places in one field {in eodem campo) and 8 acres in 2 places in campo del Nord.' Grant of 11 J acres from one-third of 1} virgates, scil., " in Northfelde tres acras versus aquilonem et in Suthfelde quinque acras versus austrum et in crofta que fuit Matillis La Dele tres acras et dimidiam."' Grant of ij acres in 2 parcels in campo occidentali and I acre in 2 parcels in campo orientali. Grant of 4 acres in 3 parcels and in alio campo 6 acres in 5 parcels.' Plea inter alia " de xv acris in uno campo et de XV acris in alio campo." " Detailed terrier of Dunstable lands in Hare : in campo de North 88 acres in 1 23 parcels in campo de Suth 88i acres similarly subdivided.'" 1 Harl. MS. 1885, £f. 37, 49- [Early XIV ceo.] 2 Fed. Fin., 1-9-13. 3 Hen. III. > Harl. MS. 1885, 1. 52*. IXIII cen.] < Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 358, f. 40 sq. 6 Jas. I. » Fed. Fin., 1-14-39. 12 Hen. III. • Harl. MS. 1885, f. 35. (Early XIII cen.] ' Fed. Fin., 1-8-10. is John. s Harl. MS. i88s, £. S3. PilH cen.] » Fed. Fin., 1-2-30. 9 Rich. I. '» Harl. MS. i88s, £E. 9-10. [Late XIII cen.] APPENDIX II 451 Township " Wadelawe " [OdeU ?] Wrestlingworth Eyworth Stagsden Sundon Warden Wrestlingworth Description Grant of 5 acres in 2 parcels in campo occidentali and 5 acres in 2 parcels in campo orieniali} Grant of i acre in campo qui iacet versus Sutton and I acre in campo qui iacet versus Tadelavie? Extent of the demesne arable, of which " medietas pot- est seminari per annum . . . et aha medietas nihil valet quia iacet ad warectam in communi." ' Extent of the acres of demesne arable " iacentes in communi, quarum medietas que potest seminari per annum valet . . . et alia medietas nihil valet quia iacet in communi." ^ Extent of the demesne arable, of which "medietas quoli- bet anno potest seminari. . . . [Est] quedam pas- tura que quolibet altero anno est separalis in le Westfeld... ."' The acres of demesne arable " iacent in communi. . . ; medietas dicte terre seminanda valet per annum . . . et alia medietas nihil valet quia iacet in com- muni campo warectato. . . . ' Extent of the demesne arable. " Medietas dicti terre potest seminari per annum ... et alia medietas iacet warecta quolibet anno et nihil valet tunc quia iacet in communi." ' Campton Houghton Regis [Northill] Salford Bedfordshire. Three-field Townships Incomplete survey. The arable of a leasehold com- prises 30 acres in High field, 30 in Chickson field, and 30 in Benhill field.' Grant inter alia, and not consecutively, of J acre and J acre in campo del Suth if acres in 4 parcels in campo del North 25 acres in 3 parcels in campo del West.^ Terriers of the lands of the "CoUedg of NorreU" show- ing them always divided among the same three fields, e. g., in Padworth field 3I acres in 3 parcels in Bamworth field 4 acres in 8 parcels in Ladywood field 4! acres in 5 parcels.'" Map of 1595 and several terriers. A terrier of lands in the occupation of Thos. Whyler describes ' Harl. MS. 1885, i- 636. [Early XIII cen.] 2 Ped. Fin., 1-2-21. 9 Rich. I. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 37 (22). 8 Edw. III. 4 Ibid., F. 38 (14). 8 Edw. III. « Ibid., F. 56 (i). 12 Edw. III. « Ibid., F. 42 (22). 9 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 65 (7). IS Edw. III. 8 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 396, f£. 34-53- 3 Jas. I. = Harl. MS. 1885, f. S4J. [Early XIII cen.] ■» Rents. & Survs., Portf. 23/61. 30 Eliz. and 1612. 452 APPENDIX II Township Saltord (continued) Souldrop Tilsworth Wilden Cardington Sudbury Sutton Wootton Description II J acres in ii parcels in the Brooke field 14I acres in 1 1 parcels in the Myddell field 14I acres in 16 parcels in the Wood (also New, or Upper) field.' Grant of 3 acres from a virgate "in campis de Suthrop, scil., in Northfeld, i acram in Lusemere et in Westfeld unam acram in Sortebrache et in Suthfeld i acram in Rawedeheg." ^ The enclosure award allots 911 J acres, which lie in Lower field. Middle field, and Upper field.' Grant from ij hides, — "in Suthfeld decern acras et in Westfeld novem acras et in Estfeld septem acras." * Extent of the acres of demesne arable " iacentes in communi unde due partes possunt seminari per annum." ' Extent of the acres of arable demesne " iacentes in com- muni unde due partes possunt seminari per an- num."' Extent of the acres of arable demesne " iacentes in com- muni unde due partes possunt seminari per aimum. . . . Et tertia pars iacet ad warectam." ' Extent of the acres of demesne arable " que iacent in communi unde due partes possunt seminari per annum." ' Berxshise. Two-field Townships Ashbury Survey. Tenants' holdings always lie equally divided between East field and West field.' Bassildon Injured survey of one-third of the manor. There are the same number of furlongs in East field and West field." Bockhampton Grant of a virgate " que sic iacet dispersa per acras in campo," viz., in campo aquUonari 18 J acres in 14 parcels in campo australi 19 acres in 8 parcels.'' Chievely Grant of two half-acres in campo occidentali and two half-acres in campo orienlali.^ 1 All Souls MSS., Terriers 3a, 3c, and Typus CoUegii, i, map. 23. [Late Eliz.] » Pcd. Fin., 1-4-10. 4 John. « C. P. Recov. Ro., 8 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1768. * Fed. Fin., 1-7-19. 9 John. » C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 52 (5). 11 Edw. m. • Ibid., F. 38 (a6). 8 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 44 (6). 9 Edw. III. • Ibid., F. 39 (16). 8 Edw. m. • Harl. MS. 3961, £f. 117-33. 10 Hen. VIII. '« Rents. & Survs., Portf. 5/16. 7 Hen. IV. " Card. SI. Frideswide (ed. S. R. Wigram), ii. 315. lEarly XIII cen.] « Ped. Fin., 7-13-3- 23 Hen. III. APPENDIX II 453 Township Description Clapcote Grant of a tenement, "... scil., vi acras terre arrabilis in uno campo . . . et vi in alio cum insula prati ad eandem pertinente." ' Coleshill Grant of " sex acras terre et i acram prati . . . scil., tres acras in campo australi et tres acras in campo boriali." ^ Famborough Enclosure award, affecting (apart from 45 acres of down land) 426I acres in the North field and 478 acres in the South field.' Knighton Grant of one-half hide of demesne, viz., in campo orientali 28 acres in 3 places in campo qttoque occidentali 3 2 acres in 4 places and 6 acres of meadow.* Milton The enclosure map shows two large open fields called North field and South field, lying to the north and south of the village. The award encloses 129 acres in the former, 327 in the latter.' Brook, West An extent in which 76 acres of demesne arable lie in East field and West field and " Ovenham " field (Ownham is an adjacent hamlet) , and " iacent in communi tempore aperto omnibus tenentibus domini." ^ Cookham Extent of the demesne arable, of which " medietas po- test sejninari per annum ... et si non seminatur nihil valet, quia iacet in communi. ... " ' Shaw Extent. " Sunt in dominico due carucate terre . . . quarum medietas seminari potest per annum . . . et aha medietas . . . iacet ad warectam et in campo communi unde pastura est communis." ' Upton Extent of the demesne arable, of which " medietas semi- nari potest per annum. ... De terra iacente ad warectam nihil inde percipi potest quia in campo communi et pastura communis." ' Wittenham, West Extent of the demesne arable, of which " medietas per annum seminari potest. ... Et alia medietas iacet ad warectam in communi campo. Ita quod nulla inde pastura vendi potest." '" 1 Cartl. St. Frideswide (ed. Wigram), ii. 365. [123S-48.I 2 Fed. Fin., 7-2-8. 1 John. ' C. P. Rec. Ro., 18 Geo. Ill, Hil. 1777. * Cartl. St. Frideswide (ed. Wigram), ii. 302. [c. 1150-60.] * C. P. Recov. Ro., 50 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1810. « Rents. & Survs., Ro. 46. 14 Edw. III. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., quoted in Bibl. Topog. Brit., iv. 138. 25 Edw. III. ! C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 67 (4). 16 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 52 (7). II Edw. III. i» Ibid., F. 51 (3). II Edw. III. 454 APPENDIX II Township " BaUattesfeld " Great Coxwell ' HuUefeld ' Stanford in the Vale Berkshire. Three-field Townships Description A short and partly illegible terrier. In North field are 4 entries with a total of 20j acres; in West field are 5 entries, in East field 2 entries, the totals being illegible.' A terrier of what is probably the demesne, showing in the first field (unnamed) 105 acres in 13 places in campo boreali 121 acres in 18 places in campo orientali 172 acres in 23 places besides 53 acres consolidated and 22 acres in crofts.^ A terrier, locating in North field 5! acres in 8 places in West field 6\ acres in 3 places in East field 3j acres in 2 places.' A terrier of two yard-lands, which comprise a mes- suage, an orchard, two closes, " half a hide of meade in the Lott meade," common of pasture, and in Nye or West field lof acres in 21 parcels in North field iif acres in 24 parcels in East field gj acres in 22 parcels.^ Buckinghamshire. Two-field Townships Bradwell Grant of " dimidiam virgatam terre . . . scil., xiii acras et imam rodam in uno campo et xi acras in alio campo." * Claydon Grant of 9I acres of arable and meadow, scil., in campo orientali 6 acres in 7 parcels et in alio campo, scil., in occidentali 3I acres in 5 parcels.' Claydon, Steeple Terrier of " two yardlands of glebe lands contayning in number Three score and one ridges or lands arable wherof Thirtie and one are lying and being in the Mill field [11 acres, 9 lands, and 3 ' mowing Hades '] and other Thirtie in the Wood field [14 acres, 2 lands, and I ' mowing hade in Puddle '] ".' Drayton Parslow Agreement that there shall be pasture for a certain number of cattle " quando campus de Draiton qui est versus austrum iacebit ad warectas," and that a certain " cultura " shall not be plowed and sown " nfti quando homines de Draiton arabunt et ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. i/l. 14 [Edw. III.] 2 Cott. MS., Nero A XII, f. 132. [Early XV cen.] ' Rente. & Survs., Portf. i/i. 14 [Edw. III.] • Add. MS. 36903, £. II. 27 Eliz. f Cott. MS., Tib. E V, £. 214I1. [Transcript iq Xrv cen. cartl.] « Rents. & Survs., Ro. 7S. 9 Hen. VI. ' Ibid., Portf. 22/99. 1639. APPENDIX II 455 Township Drayton, Parslow (continued) Hadenham " Hdpestrop " Shalstone Stewkley Stoke Aston Clinton Description seminabunt predictum campum de Draiton scil. quolibet secundo anno." ' Grant of 8 acres, " quarum quatuor iacent in campo versus occidentem scil. due in Gotland et due in hutland et alie quatuor in campo versus orientem scil. due in Gotland et due in butland." ^ Grant of 4 acres of arable, viz. , in campo versus North 4J buttes and i acre in campo versus Suth 2 acres in 4 parcels.' Grant of a half-virgate, viz. , 4I acres in the East field 4J acres in the West field.' Grant of 160 acres of demesne arable, of which 80 are in campo de Suhelt in 11 " culture," and 80 are in campo del Est in 13 " culture." * Exchange of 4 acres of meadow for " 6 acras terre in campo de Nord iuxta croftam . . . et 6 acras terre in campo de Sud " in 3 parcels.' Extent of the demesne, of which " medietas seminari potest per annum ... Et si [acre] non seminantur nichil valent eo quod pastura inde est communis omnibus tenentibus predicti manerii."' Adstock Bierton Borstall Glaydon St. Botolph Hulcot Buckinghamshire. Three-field Townships The enclosure award and map show three large open fields. Breach, Newell, and Haskell.' Survey in which the open-field acres of the customary holdings are equally divided among Hoods field. Middle field, and Fenne field.' Gonfirmation of a grant of the tithes " de tribus campis de Borstall . . . vocatis Frithfeld, Gowhousefeld et Amegrovefeld." '" Terrier describing arable, viz., in the Wode field loj acres in 15 parcels in the East field SJ acres in 1 1 parcels in the North field 75 acres in 15 parcels." Terrier of lands held by a lessee of All Souls Gollege, viz. , 30 parcels in Esseldon field containing 10 acres, 4 butts, 8 leys > Ped. Fin., 14-13-4. 6 Hen. III. 2 Ped. Fin., 14-1-6. 7 Rich. I. ' Harl. MS. 1885, £. S3. [Copy of c. 1300.I * R. Ussher, 0»e Hundred and Sixty-two Deeds (privately printed), p. 7. [c. 1250.] ' Pipe Roll. Soc., 1894, Publ., xvii, no. 138. 7 Rich. I. ' Ped. Fin., 14-3-14. 10 Rich. I. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 64 (10). IS Edw. III. 8 C. P. Recov. Ro., 39 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1797. 9 Land Rev., M. B. 200, ff. 101-120. 6 Jas. I m White Kennett, Parochial Antiquities, ii. 381. [28 Hen. VI.l " Rents. & Survs., Portf. s/20. [Hen. VIII.] 4S6 Township Hulcot {continued) Ilmere Maids Norton Olney Padbury Stewkley Wingrave Adstock 1 All Souls MSS., Terrier 2. 1575. s Rents. & Survs., Ro. 79. 11 Edw. III. > All Souls MSS., Terrier 9, and Typus CoUegii, i, map 2. 1592. « C. P. Recov. Re, 8 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1768. APPENDIX II Description 17 parcels in North field containing 6\ acres, 2 londs, I ley 18 parcels in Moore field containing 6 acres, i butt, II leys.' Extent of the demesne arable which was probably in open field, viz., in prima seisona 35I acres in 6 places in secunda seisona 63 acres in 9 places in tertia seisona 47! acres in 3 places.' Terrier of the farm of the College, viz., in Hollowaye field 69 lands, 63 butts, 7^ acres, 3 leys, in 59 parcels in the Meade field 51 lands, 41 butts, 23^ acres, 13 leys, in 71 parcels in the Chattell field 60 lands, 55 butts, 12J acres, 12 leys, in 67 parcels. The contemporary map shows the same three fields and a small one called Rodwell field.' Areas afiEected by the enclosure award lay in six large fields, called Limekiln, Hyde, West, Middle, Wood- lands, and Beneath the Town.* A map showing three large fields. East, West, and Hedge.' Grant of i8j acres of arable, sell., " sex acr[as] ex north' parte campi de terra coci . . . et sex acras ex est parte campi iuxta le bonde men land . . . et sex acras ex suth parti campi super Lanedistubbing' et dimidiam acram ad mansum." ' Terrier of the copyhold of Thomas Broke, the parcels being nearly always half-acres, viz., in South field in 17 furlongs, 25 acres of arable, 8| acres of " layes " in Rowsam field in 6 furlongs, 2^ acres of arable, 2 acres of " layes " in North field in 23 furlongs, 29 acres of arable, 12^ acres of " layes " in East field in 18 furlongs, 24 acres of arable, 2 acres of " layes " meadow ground in 15 furlongs [no areas given].' Extent of the demesne arable which lies " in communi unde due partes possunt seminari . . . et tertia pars nichil valet quia iacebit ad warectam." ' ' All Souls Typus CoUegii, i, map i. 1591. • Harl. MS. 3640, f. 52. [XIV cen. cartl.l ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. s/76. (Hen. VIII.) s C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 47 (8). 10 Edw. lU. APPENDIX II 457 Tmmshit Aylesbury Buckland Caldecot Soulbury Wolverton Description Extent of the acres of demesne arable " iacentes in communi unde due partes possunt seminari per annum. ... " ' Extent of the acres of demesne arable " iacentes in communi unde due partes possunt seminari per annum. ... " * Extent of 60 acres of demesne arable, " de quibus semi- nabantur hoc anno . . . tam semine hiemaU quam quadragesimali xl acre et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent of the acres of demesne arable, "unde due partes possunt seminari per annum . . . et residuum nic- hil valet quia iacet in communi." ■* Extent. " Sunt in dominico cc acre terre arabilis que valent per annum Ixvi s. viii d. et non plus quia tertia pars dicte terre est warecta et iacet in com- muni et est nullius valoris. . . . " ' Cambsidgeshike. Two-field Townships Abington Grant (defaced) of about 4 acres, viz., in campo ... 8 rods in 8 parcels in campo orientali 9 rods in 7 parcels.' , Boxworth Transfer of 10 acres " in campis de Bokesworth," viz., in campo boriali 30 selions in campo auslrali 1 2 selions.' Tadlow Grant (defaced) of 22 acres, viz., in campo orientali about 1 1 acres in 11 parcels in campo occidentali about 1 1 acres in 13 parcels.' Boxworth Litlington Extent. " Sunt in dominico clx acre terre arabilis de quibus possunt seminari per annum iiii^''- . . . Et alie iiii"" acre nichil valent quia iacent in com- muni campo." ' Extent. " Sunt in dominico cliii acre terre arabilis de quibus possunt seminari per annum Ixxvi acre et dimidia. Et alie Ixxvi acre et dimidia que non seminantur nichil valent per annum quia iacent in commum. > C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. SS (i8). Edw. III. ! Ibid., F. 37 (22). [81 Edw. III. = Ibid., F. 61 (14). 14 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 37 (22). [81 Edw. III. 6 Ibid., F. 64 (23). IS Edw. III. " Ped. Fin., 23-4-47. 4 John. ' Harl. MS. 3697. PCV cen. copy.] 8 Ped. Fin., 23-9-23. 3 Hen. III. > C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 51 (11). Edw. III. i» Ibid. 458 APPENDIX II Cambeidgeshike. Three-field Townships Township Description Bamwell Terrier of several holdings, all of which divide their arable acres among North field, Stony field, and White field. Sometimes the division is nearly equal (7, 7, 10; 9, 9, 9), sometimes less so (9J, 7^, 4i).' " Beche " Grant of " ix acras terre, iii in quolibet campo." ^ Chesterton Indenture regarding 7 acres, " quarum tres dimidie acre iacent in campo versus Middleton. . . et tres acre in Middelfeld . . . et in tertio campo in foxholl' dimidia acra. . . . " ' Chippenham Grant of a croft and 15 acres of arable, viz., in " Norcampo " 5 acres in 4 parcels in " Soutcampo "3! acres in 3 parcels in West field 6f acres in 6 parcels.* Cottenham Grant of loj acres, scil., " in campo qui vocatur Altebur. . . et in campo qui vocatur Foxholefeld iii acre et in campo qui vocatur Lawefeld. . . . " ' Cottenham Grant of three rods, one in each of the above named fields.' Downham Extent. The demesne arable comprises " in campo qui vocatur aggrave octoviginti acre in campo qui vocatur Westfeld septemviginti et de- cem acre in campo qui vocatur Estfeld sexviginti et quat- uordecim acre et dimidia." ' Foxton Terrier of the lands of St. Michael's College, Cambridge: in the North field 175 acres in 24 parcels in " Chawdwel " field 11 j acres in 16 parcels in a field called Down 18 acres in 34 parcels.* Gamlingay Map and accompanying schedule showing that demesne and tenants' holdings were divided pretty evenly among three fields. The demesne arable of the manor of "Avenelles " comprised iiSJ acres in the East field, 106 acres in the Middle field, 12 acres in the Sandes field, and 88 acres in the South field.' Harlton Terrier of the lands of St. Michael's College, Cambridge : in the North field 11 j acres in 22 parcels in the West field 11 f acres in 27 parcels in the " hy " field 9 acres in 18 parcels.'" 1 Rents. & Survs., Portf. s/78. [Rich. 11.] 2 Cott. MS., Titus A I, £. 516. [Copy in cartl. temp. Edw. I.] ' Merton Col. MSS., Charter 1S46. 42 Hen. III. * Harl. MS. 3697, f. 155. [Copy in cartl. of 1387.1 6 Pad. Fin., 23-5-27. 4 John. 8 Ibid., 23-12-39. 12 Hen. III. ' Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f. 34. 1278. ' Rents. & Survs., Ro. 7. PCVI cen.] ' Merton Col. MSS.^map and schedule. 1601. i» Rents. & Survs., Ro. 7. [XVI cen.l APPENDIX II 459 Township Haslingfield Hinxton Litlington Littleport " Lyndon " Description Terrier of the lands of St. Michael's College, Cambridge: in the field called " Dawland " 8f acres in 25 parcels in the field called " Rowlay " 11 j acres in 25 parcels in the field called " Downefelde " gj acres in 19 par- cels.' Terrier of the lands of St. Michael's College, Cambridge: in the West field 8| acres in " ly Medylfeld " g\ acres in " ly Chyrchfeld " Sf acres.^ Survey. The demesne arable comprises 41 acres in Westwoode field, 31 in Grenedon field, and 35 in Hyndon field, together with 125 acres not in the fields.' Extent. The demesne arable comprises " in campo qui vocatur Westfeld quinque viginti acre et quinque rode terre in Suthfeld quinque viginti acre in Estfeld quater viginti acre et tres rode." * Extent. The demesne arable comprises " in campo qui vocatur Northay ducente et quad- raginta acre in campo qui vocatur Middelfeld ducente et quater- viginti acre in campo qui vocatur Sephey ducente et quater- viginti et novem acre in campo qui vocatur Snota viginti quinque acre." ' Grant of half a woodland and " tres acras terre arabilis quarum tres rode et dimidia iacent in Cherchefeld . . . et in alio campo una acra . . . et in tertio campo una acra et dimidia roda." * Terrier of two holdings with acres allotted to " Dyche- felde," " Middelfeld," and " Begdalfyld," as fol- lows: 35 in 12 parcels, 25 in 7 parcels, ij in 7 parcels 1 1 in 5 parcels, i| in 3 parcels, if in 3 parcels.' Extent. The demesne arable comprises " in campo qui vocatur Kirkefeld quinque viginti et octo acre et una roda in Hethfeld septem viginti et tresdecim acre in Westfeld quinque viginti et undecim acre." ' Extent. The demesne arable comprises " in campo vocato Estfeld quater viginti et sexdecim acre I Rents. & Survs., Ro. 7. [XVI cen.] = Ibid., f. 53- 1278. ! Ibid. 8 Ped. Fin., 23-9-22. 3 Hen. III. ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. 6/18. [29] Hen. VIII. ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. 22/43. 1566. ' Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f. 38*. 1278. ' Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f. 132. 1278. Shudy Camps Swaffham Prior Thriplow Wilburton 460 Township Wilburton {continued) Willingham Willingham Fen Ditton Gransden Madingley Whaddon APPENDIX II Description in campo vocato Suthfeld sexaginta et duodecim acre in campo vocato Nortfeld centum et octo acre." ' Extent. The arable demesne comprises " in campo qui vocatxa: Westfeld quater viginti et due acre in campo qui vocatur Middelf eld quater viginti et un- dedm acre in campo qui vocatur Belasis quinque viginti et sex acre." 2 Terriers of small holdings which have parcels in Cad- win field, Belsaies field, and West field. The terrier of a half-yardland in an eighteenth-century hand allots acres equally to these three fields.' Extent of the demesne arable, " de quibus tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam. Et de residuo quelibet acra valet per annum vi d. quum semi- nantur et quum non seminantur tunc nihil valent quia tunc iacent in communi per totum annum." * Extent of the demesne arable, " unde due partes earun- dem seminantur per annum . . . et tertia pars ear- undem nichil valet quia iacet in communi ad warec- tam."' Extent of the demesne arable, "quarum due partes pos- sunt seminari quolibet anno et . . . tertia pars nic- hil valet quia iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.^ Extent. " Sunt ibidem iiii'"' acre terre arabilis et inde seminabantur hoc aimo Ix acre terre et residuum iacet in communi." ' Derbyshire. Three-pieu) Townships Glapwell Grant inter alia of " duas culturas ... in campo qui vocatur Northfeld et unam culturam in campo qui vocatur Suthfeld . . . et duas acras et dimidiam in Estfeld. . . . " ' Osmaston Specification of the common of pasture which the abbot and convent of Derley may have " quum campi de Osmudestone et de lutchurch iacent in warecto versus Derewente . . . in aimo subsequente . . . quum campi de Osmimde- stone et de Lutchurch iacent in warecto versus Normanton et Codintone 1 Cott. MS., Claud C XI, £. 49. 1278. ' Ibid., £. 111. 1278. » Add. MS. 14049. [XV cen.l » Add. MS. 6165, f. 1346. 30 Edw. III. ' C. Inq. p. Mort, Edw. Ill, F. 43 (10). 9 Edw. III. • Ibid., F. 46 (33). 10 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 64 (20). IS Edw. III. 8 Cott. MS., Titus C XII, f. 120. [Late XIII cen. copy.] APPENDIX II 461 Township Osmaston {contitmed) Shirebroke Description et in tertio anno . . . quum campus de Lutdmrch iacet in warecto versus Derb'." ' Transfer of a toft and a bovate " prout iacet in tribus stadiis camporum . . . cuius bovate unum stadium abuttat super parcum de pleseley in campo australi et alterum stadium abuttat sui)er akkyr hedge in uno fine et vUlam predictam in campo qui vocatur Tonnefeld et tertium stadium iacet in campo ocddentali . . . et ista bovata extendit se ab austro in boriam ubique exceptis duobus buttis qui iacent in campo boriali. ' ' ^ Afflington Blandford Crichel Eastington Gufsage Dsington Nyland Piddle Dorset. Two-field Townships Extent (defaced). The demesne arable comprises in campo horientali 66 acres and in campo occidentali [82 acres].' Grant of " vii acre terre in uno campo et vii in alio campo," and of " quatuor acre terre in uno campo et iiii in alio." * Grant of 8 acres, scil., 4 acres in one field in 4 parcels and 4 acres in the other field in 3 parcels. ' Terrier of the lands of Christchurch Priory, Hants. In the North field are 105! acres in 11 " culture " in the South field, loS acres in 21 " culture." ' Grant of a virgate from the demesne, scil., " decem acras in uno campo et decem acras in aUo campo et unam acram prati . . . et unam acram ad facien- dum curtillagium." ' Grant of a messuage and " tres acre in uno campo et duas acras in alio, in campo orientali ... [5 parcels] in campo occidentali ... [2 parcels]." ' Survey showing six holdings, the acres of which are almost equally divided between North field and South field, i.e., 12 m. 12, 9 vs. 8, ro vs. 7, gj vs. 7j, 22 vs. 20, 14 vs. 14.' Grant of one-third of three hides, viz., " a third part of the West field towards the south, with the yards and crofts which are in the same field towards the 1 Cott. MS., Titus C XII,, f. 62b. [1247-1353.1 2 Exch. K. R., M. B. 23, f. 7g. 2 Hen. V. ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. 7/9. [Edw. III.) » Cott. MS., Otho B XIV, f. 44. [XV cen. copy.) ' E. A. and G. S. Fry, Dorset Fines (1896), p. 10. 4 John. « Cott. MS., Tib. D VI, f. 235. 34 Edw. [II. ' Ibid., f. 119. {XV cen. copy.] 8 Ibid., f. 163. [XV cen. copy.] » Land Rev., M. B. 214, ff. 91-92. 6 Jas.I. 462 APPENDIX II Township Piddle (continued) Piddletown Tatton WesthiU Wimbome, Upper Description south of the little garden and a third part of the East field towards the south. ..."'■ Grant of " centum acras colendas, viz., quadraginta in uno campo et quadraginta in alio campo de dominico meo." ^ Grant of two and one-half virgates, viz., in campo occidentali 30 acres in 21 parcels in campo orientali 32 acres similarly subdivided.' Grant of four acres, scil., " duas acras terre in uno campo et duas acras in alio campo." * Grant of a messuage and a half-virgate, scil., " quinque acras in uno campo et v in alio. " * Abbotsbury Graston Hilton Portisham Tolpiddle Witherston " Wotton " Dorset. Three-field Townships Extents of the demesne lands of these manors. Rela- tive to the demesne in each instance occurs the phrase, " due partes . . . possunt seminari per an- num . . . et tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in communi et ideo nullius valoris." * AflEpiddle Bloxworth Ceme Hawkchurch Mintem Symondsbury Winfrith " Wydesford " Bolam Gainford Langton Extents of the lands of Ceme abbey. Relative to the demesne in each instance occurs the phrase quoted above.' Durham. Three-field Townships Terrier of seven holdings. ■ Each has an almost equal amount of arable and meadow in East field. West field, and North field.' Terrier of many holdings. Each is predominantly arable and is evenly divided between West field. Middle field, and East field.' Terrier of several holdings. Each is largely arable and is divided evenly between West field, South field, and North field.'" * Fry, Dorset Firies, p. 17. 13 John. ! Cott. MS., Tib. D VI, £. 140. [XV cen. copy.] ' Ibid., f. 169. [XV cen. copy.] * Ibid., f. 122. [XV cen. copy.] ' Ibid., f. 116. [XV cen. copy.l ■ Rents. & Survs., Portf. 7/10. 17 Edw. III. ' Add. MS. 6i6s, fl. 33-35. 3° Edw. UI. ' Land Rev., M. B. 192, f. 31 5}. s Jas. I. ' Land Rev., M. B. 193, S. 15-19. s Jas. I. "> Ibid., ff. 22-24. 5 Jas. I. APPENDIX II 463 Township Loiig Newton Raby Shotton Summerhouse Wackerfield Wellington Whitworth Whorlton Wick, West Wolviston Description Terrier of many holdings. Each is largely arable and is divided evenly between North field, South field, and West field.' Terrier of several leaseholds. Each is largely arable and is evenly divided among three fields, two of which are subdivided, viz.. West field and Crundle- dyke field, Chapell field, Crabtree field and High field.2 Terrier of seven holdings. Each is largely arable and the acres are almost exactly divided between West field, East field, and Middle field.' Terrier of a few large holdings. The arable of each is divided between Low field, South field, and North field.'' Terrier of several holdings. They are largely arable and their arable is evenly divided between West field. High field, and East field.^ Terrier of several holdings. A few retain some open- field arable divided between Hither Crownel field, Far Crownel field, and le Langlands.° Terrier of several holdings. They still have consider- able arable, which is pretty evenly divided between West field, Broome field, and FarnehiU field.' Terrier of several holdings, rather more than one-half of each being equally divided between West field, Bennow field, and Lowe field.' A long terrier. Arable predominates in each holding, and is often evenly divided between Middle field, Low field, and High field.' Transfer of 6 acres of arable in the fields, viz., in campo boriali 5 roods and 2 selions in 2 places in campo aitstrali 9 selions in 2 places in campo occidentali 7 selions in i place.'" Gloucestershire. Two-pield Townships Ablington A short survey. In three instances the arable is divided evenly between East field and West field, e.g., 210 acres vs. 200 acres." Alderton Transfer of 4 acres of arable in uno campo in 5 parcels and of 4 in alio in 4 parcels.'^ * Land Rev., M. B. 193, f. 29 sq. 5 Jas I. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 192, f. 5 sq. ' Ibid., f. 29*. 6 Jas. I. * Ibid., f. 22&. 5 Jas. I. ' Ibid., £f. i8J, 19. 5 Jas. I. • Ibid., i. sob. 5 Jas. I. ' Ibid., £. 64. S Jas. I. S Jas. I. 8 Land Rev., M.B. 193, f. 8J. s Jas. I. » Ibid., f. sb. s Jas. I. ^ Feodarium Prioratus Dunelmensis (Surtees Soc, 1871), p. 32, n. 2. 132s. " RenU. & Survs., Pottf. 2/46- i Edw. VI. w Carll. St. Pet. Glmc. (Rolls Series), i. 167. [Mid. XIII cen.l 464 TowHship " Eston " [Cold Ashton] Aston Sub-edge Badminton Bagendon Bisley Cherrington Cowley Dorsington Duntisbome Abbots East Leach and Fyfield Hampen APPENDIX II Description Grant of " servitium . . . de octo acris terre in uno campo et de octo acris in alio campo." ' The abbot has the chapel and " in imo campo xv acras terre et in alio xiiii."* Transfer of 14^ acres of arable, viz., 8 acres in campo orientali and 6\ acres in campo occidentali. The numerous parcels are described, and other holdings are similarly divided between the fields.' Transfer of a messuage, a close, and 2 acres of arable " in utroque campo." * Long survey. Most customary holdings are evenly divided between Battlescombe field and Stank- combe (sometimes Stankham) field.' Rental. " Una virgata terre iacet in campis, viz., " in campo vocato le Northfeld xxx acre terre ara- bilis et in campo vocato le Southfeld xxx acre terre ara- bUis." « Transfer of a messuage and 14 acres of arable, viz., " septem acras terre in campo meridionaJi et alias septem acras in campo occidentali." ' Transfer of a messuage, a croft, and a virgate of land, the latter comprising 13 acres in campo orientali in 15 parcels and 13 acres in campo occidentali in 13 parcels.* Extent. " Robert Abovetun tenet unam virgatam terre continentem quadraginta quatuor acras in utroque campo." ' Transfer of a messuage in East Leach, and of " viii acras in uno campo de Fishyde [Fyfield], scil., in campo versus North [in 16 parcels] et totidem in alio, scil., in campo versus Suth [in 17 parcels]". Transfer of 13 acres of arable in East Leach, divided almost evenly between South field and North field.'" Transfer of 6 acres of arable in 6 parcels and in alio campo of 6 acres in 2 parcels. The same land is again described as " sex acras in uno campo et sex acras in alio campo." ^ * Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. D. Royce), i. 233. [XIII cen.l 2 Eynsham Cartl. (ed. H. E. Salter), i. 137. [1180-84.I ' Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f. s. [1235-49.] • Glouc. Inq. p. Mort., British Record Soc., Index Library, ix. 31. 2 Chas. I. » Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 394, ff. 78-126. 6 Jas. I. « Rents. & Survs., Portf. 7/70, £. 13. [Hen. VIII.] ' Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f. 23. [1249-62.] » Harl. MS. 4028. i Edw. II. • CarU. SI. Pel. Glouc. (Rolls Series) iii. 194- [1266-67.] 1" Ibid., i. 271, 274. [1212-43, 1263-84.] ^^ Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), i. ISI-S4. \c. 1200.1 APPENDIX 11 465 Township Hawkesbury Hitcot Mikleton Norton Sevenhampton Sherborne Shipton Stratton Tresham Whittington Yanworth Fairford Description Transfer of a messuage and a croft, " cum duabus acris in uno campo et duabus in alio." ' The abbot has " in utroque campo duas acras." ^ " Et habet vicarius in utroque campo unam hidam." ' Extent of the demesne, which comprises " ccvii acre terre arabiUs in utroque campo." * Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises 419I acres in campo Haustrali " in diversis culturis " and 390 acres in campo orientali.^ A series of charters showing holdings equally divided between North field and South field (cf . especially p. 268).!' Grant of 30 acres from a virgate, scil., in campo qui vocatur Estfeld 15 acres in 12 parcels in alio campo qui vocatur W estfeld 15 acres in 11 parcels.' Extent. The demesne arable lies in two fields, viz., " in campo orientaU et boriali in diversis culturis . . . xlviii acre. . . . Et in eisdem campis 1 acre . . . et in eisdem campis 1 acre. ... " ' Grant of 2 J acres, viz., in campo australi ij acres in 2 parcels in campo boriali i acre in i parcel.' Grant of common of pasture " super totam terram . . . [except] in uno campo culturam de Cumbe et in alio campo culturam de Wicham." 1° Transfer of 5 acres in uno campo in 2 parcels and 5 acres in alio campo in 5 parcels. Transfer of 4 acres in campo del Suth and 4 acres in campo de North."- Extent. " Sunt in dominico cccciiii'"' acre terre arabilis quarum ccxl acre seminate fuerunt ante [20 July]. . . . Et ccxl non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi." ^ Gloucestershire. Three-fieu) Townships Minchin Hampton Extent of the demesne arable, " de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum . . . et tertia pars nihil valet quia iacet warecta et in communi." " 1 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f. 7- I1234-49.I 2 Eynsham Cartt. (ed. Salter), i. 137. [1180-84.I ' Ibid. < C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 2 (is), i Edw. III. ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. 16/66. 22 Edw. I. " Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), u. 234-68. [XIII-XIV cen.l ' Ped. Fin., 73-12-207. 20 Hen. III. » Rents. & Survs., Portf. i6/66. 22 Edw. I. » Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f.76. (1249-62.] 1" Ped. Fin., 73-3-62. 10 John. " Reg, Monast, de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), ii. 320, 371. [XIII cen.l M C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 51 (2). 11 Edw. III. u Ibid., F. 39 (6). 8 Edw. III. 466 Township Oldland Oxenton Shipton Moyne Sudbury Stoke Orchard Tewkesbury Tockington APPENDIX II Description Extent of the demesne arable, of which " tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent of the demesne arable, " unde due partes semi- nantur et tertia pars iacfet ad warectam et frisca hoc anno."^ Extent of the demesne arable which lies "in communi, unde due partes seminabantur ante [26 April] et tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent. " Sunt in dominico cccclx acre terre arabilis quarum cccvii acre seminate fuerunt ante [20 July]. . . . Et cliii acre non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi."'' Extent. Phraseology as in Sudbury extent. In de- mesne are 100 acres, of which 60 are sown.' Extent. Phraseology as in Sudbury extent. In de- mesne are 400 acres, of which 270 are sown." Extent. " Sunt in dominico cxxii acre terre arabilis. . . . De quibus seminabantur hoc anno ante [10 July] iiii" acre semine yemali et quadragesimali et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi." ' Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Two-field Townships Barton Stacy Bullington Forton Hinton Middleton ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 61 (13). 14 Edw. III. ! Ibid., F. s6 (i). 12 Edw. HI. s Ibid., F. 62 (6). 14 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 51 (12). II Edw. III. » Ibid. • Ibid. The enclosure award allots 1807 acres lying in two great fields of similar size, named East and West.' Grant of 8§ acres in 12 parcels in campo australi and gi acres in 10 parcels in campo boriali. A virgate comprises 10 acres in campo aquilonari and 1 2 acres in campo austraH? Exchange of a mill, a meadow, and four acres of arable, of which " due sunt in campo de Northt et due sunt in campo de Soudh." '" Lands of the priory of Twineham comprise a croft of 5 1 acres and 172J acres in 14 " culture " in North field and 1 44 J acres in 9 " culture " in South field. " Grant of " duo curtilagia . . . et octo acre terre unde tres acre iacent in campo boriali [in 2 parcels] et quinque acre iacent in campo australi [in 5 par- cels]."" ' Ibid., F. SI (8). II Edw. III. 8 Chancery Close Ro. 1757. ' Egerton MS. 2104, ff. sgi, 160. [XIII cen. copy.] i« Ibid., f. 34*. 1234. " Cott. MS., Tib. D VI, vol. u. f. 71. 34 Edw. I. " Egerton MS. 2104, f. 139. 11 Edw. 11. APPENDIX II 467 Township Week Wherwell Newtown, Isle of Wight Somerford, Isle of Wight Description Grant of " duas acras et dimidiam in utroque campo et unam virgatam prati et duas acras quas Martinus tenuit scil. in utroque campo unam et duas acras quas Sewynas tenuit scil. in utroque campo unam." ' Grant of 4 acres " in campo de Wherwell quarum una iacet in campo orientali in cultura que vocatur dodenam et in campo occidentali tres acre [in 3 parcels]." * Extent of demesne arable, viz., " in cultura in quodam campo quod vocatur le Suth- f eld continentur xxxii acre i roda et in cultura que vocatur le Nortfeld continentur XXX acre et dimidia terre." ' Lands of the prior of Twynham comprise a croft of 65 acres and in 6 " culture " in West field 30 acres and in 9 " culture " in East field 985 acres.* Andover Charlton Enham Bradley Drayton in the parish of Barton Stacy Faccombe Oakley, [Church] Hampshire. Three-field Townships A long series of small grants of land in each of these townships. Three fields appear in each, viz., at Andover, East, South, and West fields at Charlton, North, South, and West fields at Enham, North, South, and East fields.' Grant of 2j acres in campo qui vocatur Westfeld and 25 acres in campo qui vocatur Northfeld and 2i acres in campo qui vocatur Estfeld.^ Lands from which tithes are due are enumerated at length. Apart from a few crofts they lie in ' le Estfeld," " le Sowthfelde," and " Westfeld." ' Terrier of the parsonage glebe, which is " accounted one yard land." Besides crofts of 2| acres, it com- prises in Middle field 13! acres in 11 parcels in South field 7I acres in 6 parcels in North field 10 acres in 13 parcels.' Compotus rolls. In 1338 the campus orientalis and campus auslralis are sown, in 1398 the West field.' '•Egerton MS. 2104, S. 38J, 116b. 33 Hen. III. ' Ibid., £. iss. PCIII cen. copy.] > Rents. & Survs., Ro. 579. 28 Edw. I. < Cott. MS., Tib. D VI, vol. u. £. 71J. 34 Edw. I. » Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds. [Late XIII cen.] • Ped. Fin., 203-8-55. 33 Hen. III. ' Egerton MS. 2104, £. 204. [Edw. III.] * Rents. & Survs., Portf. 1/31. 16 Jas. I. ■ G. W. Kitchin, Manor of Manydown (Hamp- shire Rec. Soc., l8gs), pp. 151, 160. 1338, 1398. 468 Township " Est Ade " [Oakley ?] Wroxhall, Isle of Wight APPENDIX II Description Grant of i6 acres of arable, " unde sex acre terre iacent in cultura que vocattir Sud- f eld . . . septem acre terre iacent in campo qui vocatur Nordfeld ... [in 2 parcels] et tres acre terre iacent in campo qui vocatur Est- feld."i Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo australi 44 acres in campo orientali 82! acres in campo horiali 8if acres.' Hinton Lasham Nutley Tystede Extent. " Sunt in dominico ccxxx acre terre arabilis de quibus clx acre possunt seminari per annum . . . et Ixx . . . non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi per totum annum." ' Extent. " Sunt ibidem iiii^x acre terre arabilis de quibus be acre . . . possunt seminari per annum . . . et XXX acre non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi per totiun annum." * Extent. " Sunt in dominico cciiii acre terre arabilis de quibus cxxxvi acre possimt seminari per an- num. ... Et bcvii acre . . . non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi per totiun annum." ' Extent. " Sunt ibidem ciiii^iiii acre de quibus cxxiii acre possunt seminari per annum. ... Et Ixi acre . . . non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warec- tam et in communi per totum annum." ' Herefordshire. Three-field Townships Asperton and Stretton Grandison Bickerton Castle Richard Extent. The three carucates of demesne arable are worth only a certain amount, " quia tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent. A carucate of demesne arable is worth only 20 s., " quia tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in communi."' Extent of two carucates of demesne arable. " Et tertia pars earundem iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi."' 1 Fed. Fin., 203-8-9. 31 Hen. III. • 2 Rents & Survs., Ro. 579. 28 Edw. 1. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 37 (20). 8 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 46 (14)- 10 Edw. HI. > Ibid., F. 41 (to). 8 Edw. III. • Ibid. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 43 {4). 9 Edw. III. • Ibid., F. 44 (5). 9 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 62 (7). 14 Edw. III. APPENDIX II 469 Township Eyton Description Extent. Two carucates of demesne arable are worth only a certain amount, " quia tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi." ' Huntingdonshire. Two-field Townships Gransden Grant of three acres, of which 1 1 lie in campo qui vacatur Estfeld and I J lie in campo qui vacatur W estfeld.' Hemingford Extent of a messuage, garden, 10 acres of meadow, and 100 acres of arable " in communi, de quibus possunt seminari per annum Ix acre. ... " * Toseland Extent of a messuage, 8 acres of meadow, 4 of pasture, 6 of woodland, and 200 of arable " in communi, de quibus possunt seminari per annum c acre. ... " * Yelling Extent of a messuage and 120 acres of arable " in com- muni, de quibus possunt seminari Ix per annum." ' Huntingdonshire. Three-field Townships Coppingford Transfer of a messuage and 6f acres, of which " due acre et una roda iacent in campo versus Bokeswrth due acre et una roda iacent in campo versus Hamer- ton et due acre et una roda iacent in campo versus Aylbriktesl'." « Folksworth A survey arranged by fields and furlongs. There are three rather large fields and one smaU one, viz., West field with 12 furlongs, Bulmere field with 7 furlongs, Middle field with 18 furlongs, and the " fylde to Styltonwarde " with 4 small furlongs.^ Hammerton Transfer of 8 acres (part of a virgate), of which " tres acre iacent in campo versus Copmanneford tres acre iacent in campo versus Saleuegrove et due acre iacent in campo versus Wynewyk." ' Keyston Survey. The arable of the holdings is divided among three fields, e.g., " terra arabilis et leylonde in Mill field per estima- tionem xvii acre terra arabilis et leylonde in Gotteredge field per estimationem xv acre terra arabilis et leylonde in Morton field per estima- tionem xviii acre." ' 1 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 43 (4). 9 Edw. III. 2 Fed. Fin., 92-9-163. 32 Hen. III. ' C.Inq.p.M:ort.,Edw.II,F.82(9). 17Edw.II. « Ibid. 5 Ibid. s Fed. Fin., 92-9-175.. 32 Hen. III. ' Add. MS. 29611. 4 Edw. VI. 8 Fed. Fin., 92-10-188. 32 Hen. III. 8 Land Rev., M. B. 216, ff. 71-104. 3 Jas. I. 470 APPENDIX II Overton Weston Township Description Transfer of 1 2 acres which are part of a virgate, viz. , in various furlongs 4 acres in 4 parcels in Middel field 4 acres in 5 parcels in campo australi 4 acres in 5 parcels.' Transfer of 20 acres, of which " septem iacent in campo qui vocatur Estfeld septem iacent in campo qui vocatur Westfeld quatuor iacent in campo qui vocatur Brokfeld et due iacent in campo qui vocatur Badelisford." ^ St. Neots Extent. The prior " tenet in dominico suo ibidem vii^xx acre terre arabilis quarum . . . ii'Td acre . . . iacent ad warectam et in communi et nihil valent per annum."' Cotes Baval Croxton Gilmorton Newton Harcourt Owston Segrave Slawton and Othorp Leicestershire. Two-field Townships Grant of 10 acres of demesne arable in uno campo and 10 acres in alio campo.* General description of the arable of the township with reference to campus orientalis and campus occi- dentalis.^ The enclosure award allots 784 acres in Usser iield, 548 in Mill field, and 63 2 in Ridgway field.' Grant of " quinque acras de dominico, scil., duas acras terre et dimidiam ex una parte predicte ville et duas acras terre et dimidiam ex altera parte predicte ville in ilia parte, scilicet, versus occidentem [i j, 5, j acres] ex altera parte versus orientem [ij, i acres]." ' Transfer of the half of a virgate, scil., " in campis ex parte aquilonali ville versus solem et ex parte australi remotius a sole." ' Transfer of " una acra ex una parte campi et alia acra ex altera parte." ' Terrier showing, in many parcels, in campo occidentali 48^ acres in campo orienlali 381 acres in campo de Outhorp' 14! acres.'" » Ped. Fin., 92-2-26. 10 John. 2 Ibib., 92-10-181. 32 Hen. III. ' Add. MS. 6164, f. 420. 44 Edw. III. < Cott. MS., Vitel. A I, f. 106. [XV cen. copy.] 6 John Nichols, Leicestershire, ii, App., p. 81, Memd. 1258. • C. P. Recov. Ro., 19 Geo. Ill, Mich. 1778. ' Cott. MS., Nero C XII, f. 92. [XIV cen. copy.] 8 Ped. Fin., 121-10-78. 6 Hen. III. 8 Nichols, Leicestershire, ii, App., p. iii, from Segrave Cart!., Harl. MS. 4748. [1201-41.! ■« Cott. MS., Claud. C V. [Late XIV cen.] APPENDIX II 471 Township Sysonby Sysonby Thurnby Twjfford Description Transfer of " tres virgatas terre, scil., . . . XXV acras in uno campo et in altero totidem." ' Transfer of a half-carucate, scil., " XX [acras] in uno campo et XX in alio campo et X acras ubi est situs loci domorum suarum.'' Transfer of 45 acres of arable, viz., in uno campo 19 acres in 15 parcels in alio campo 26 acres in 13 parcels.' Grant of " unam partem tofti mei et . . . duas seliones in campo occidentali et unam rodam in campo orientali." * Amesby Barsby and S. Croxton Beeby Bowden, Great Burton Lazars Burton Lazars Leicestershire. Three-field Townships Terrier of two yard-lands, viz., in the Brooke field 11 acres of arable, 7 acres of layes, meadow, pastures, and feeding in the East field 1 2 acres of arable, 7 j acres of layes, meadow, pastures, and feeding in the North field 1 1 acres of arable, 8 acres of layes, meadow, pastures, and feeding.' Areas allotted by the enclosure award lie in three large fields called Nether, Middle, and Upper.' Transfer of " medietatem unius bovate, scil., unam acram et tres rodas in campis versus australem partem et tres dimidias acras in Halwefeld' . . . et unam acram et tres rodas in Linkefeld. . . ." ' Areas allotted by the enclosure award lie in East, West, and South fields.' Transfer of 20 acres of arable, of which 6| are fallow.' " Registrum omnium terrarum arabihum . . . prioris de lewes," viz., in the West field about lof acres in 11 parcels in the Nether field about 23 acres in 24 parcels in the Manmylne field about 281 acres in 20 parcels in the Over field about 29 acres in 28 parcels.'" 1 Nichok, Leicestershire, ii, App., p. 137, from Cartl. Gerendon Abbey, Lansd. MS. 415, f. 16. [XIII cen. copy.] 2 Ibid., App., p. 13S, from Lansd. MS. 415, f. 12. [XIII cen. copy.I ' Cott. MS., CaUg. A XII, f. 143. [XIII cen. copy.I ' Cott. MS., Nero CXII, f. 856. [Copy of 1404.] ^ Rents. & Survs., Portf. }, memb. 4. [Chas. 1.1 « C. P. Recov. Ro., 39 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1798. ' Ped. Fin., 121-6-126. 10 John. s C. P. Recov. Ro., 17 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1777. " Anc. Deeds, A 1437. [Early XIV cen.] i» Add. MS. 8930, ff. 41-46. 1493. 472 APPENDIX II Township Clawson Etton Freeby Kirkby Bellars Melton Mowbray Norton Rollestone Rotherby Stonesby DescripHon Survey showing the arable of the tenants' holdings " in tribus campis ibidem vocatis le peazefeld, the wheatfeld, and the fallow feld." ' Grant of a part of the sixth of a hide, scil., " iiii acras et dimidiam inter Etton et Elinton in Estfeld et iiii acras et unam rodam in Sudhfeld et ii acras et dimidiam in Aldefeld et V acras et dimidiam in Westfeld et ii acras prati in Lenstang." ^ Terrier of two virgates, viz., in Sowthefyld i6 acres in 25 parcels in Northfyld 15 2 acres in 19 parcels, one of which contains 32 selions in Westfyld and Estfyld 14J acres in 29 parcels.' Grant of a toft and 8f acres of arable, viz., in campo occidentali 2j acres in 7 parcels in medio campo 4! acres in 1 1 parcels in campo orientali 2\ acres in 7 parcels.* Terrier of three large holdings evenly divided between " Fallowfyld [or] Sowthefeld, Peysefyld [or] West- fyld, Whetefyld [or] Northefyld.'"^ View of the lands of the abbot of Owston, viz., in campo boriali 69! acres in 187 selions lying in 14 furlongs in campo occidentali ^o\ acres in 268 seUons Ijdng in 23 furlongs in campo australi 511 acres in 246 selions lying in 35 furlongs.' " Territor' Prioris domus Cartusiensis Londonie," whose lands comprised in campo orientali 1 73 acres in 43 parcels in campo boriali 169 J acres in 63 parcels in campo occidentali 269J acres in 67 parcels.' Terrier of the demesne lands of the priory of Chalcombe, which comprised in East field 68j acres in Middle field 62 acres in " le heyfeld " 68 acres.' The enclosure award and plan show three large fields, Mill field, Waltham Gate field, and Gasthorp Gate field." 1 Land Rev., M. B. 220, S. 66-76. 7 Jas. I. 2 Ped. Fin., 121-3-57. 2 John. ' Add. MS. 8930, £f. 8-n. 24 Hen, VII. < Cott. MS., Nero C XII, f. sgi. [Copy of 1484.1 » Add. MS. 8930, f. 12 sq. 24 Hen. VII. ■ Rents. & Survs., Ro. 386. 1360. ' Ibid, Ro. 388. 13 Hen. VII. ' Exch. Aug. Of ., M. B. 378, f. 176- [Edw. III.) ' C. P. Recov. Ro., 21 Geo. Ill, Easter. 1781. APPENDIX II 473 Township Stoughton Theddingworth Twyford Walton and Kimcote Discription " Memorandum quod sunt in dominico ccxiii acre per maius centum . . . viz., in campo boreali versus Thumby v*" acre viz., iiii" infra fossam et xx extra fossam in campo orientali vocato Longwong [60 acres includ- ing a close of 16 acres] in campo australi [93 acres]." ' Terrier of "... Addygtons Land lately dyssessed," which comprised in San ties field 27 acres of arable in 43 parcels and 18 acres of meadow in 25 parcels in Nonhylls field 22 acres of arable in 40 parcels and iii acres of meadow in 20 parcels in Gostyll field 29 acres of arable in 44 parcels and 19 acres of meadow in 33 parcels.' The allotments of the enclosure award lie in Nether, Spinney, and Mill fields.' Terrier of the lands of GabrieU Pulteney, Esq., which comprised sJ yard-lands " in very greate measure," viz., in the North field 38 acres of arable and 6 acres of meadow in the Middle field 365 acres of arable and 51 acres of meadow in the South field 35! acres of arable and 8 acres of meadow.* Aylesby Bametby upon the Wolds Barton [upon Humber] Benni worth Lincolnshire. Two-fielb Townships The township contained 29bovates, " ita quod queUbet bovata contineat in se sexdecim acras terre, scil., octo acras ex una parte ville et totidemex altera."' The enclosure award divides some 2000 acres almost equally between the North field and the South field.'' Grant of a half-bovate, containing in campo occidentali s acres in 2 parcels in campo orientali 5 acres in 4 parcels.' Terrier of " quindecies xx'' acras terre arabUis ex una parte ipsius ville et quatuordecies xx*' et xv acras et unam perticatam et quinque fal[las] terre arabi- lis ex altera parte ville." There is no field rubric 1 Nichols, Leicestershire, i, App., p. 96, from Rent. Monast. S. Marie de Pratis Leyces- trie. [7 Hen. IV.] 2 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 10/22. [EUz.] • C. P. Recov. Ro., 3g Geo. Ill, Trin. 1796. * Rents. & Survs., Ro. gog. 34 Eliz. ^ Cartl. Prior, de Gysehurne (Surtees Soc., 1891), ii. 315. [1218-21.I « C. P. Recov. Ro., 8 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1766. ' Cott. MS., Vesp. E XX, f. 155. 474 APPENDIX II Township Benniworth {continued) Branston Burwell Claxby Claxby Coates Cockerington, South Croxton Grimblethorp Grimsby, Great Haburgh Legbourne Limber, Great Norton Description at the begimiing of the enumeration, but halfway through occurs " in oriental! campo." ' Grant of 3J acres in 2 parcels in campo orientali and 2\ acres in 2 parcels in campo occidentali? " Robt. Taler holdeth in both the feildes of Burwell ..." [amount torn].' Survey of the manor. Tenants' holdings are divided between North field (not always named) and South field.'' Grant of one-half of a bovate, viz., 4 acres on the south of the vill and 4 on the north.' Grant of " quinque acras terre ex una parte viUe . . . et quinque ex altera.'' Grant of " unam bovatam terre de dominico meo in campo de Chottes, scil., x acras terre ex una parte ville et X ex altera."" .Schedule of attainted lands. "... Oonclosse . . . and also he holdyth iii acres of arrable lande lieng in ye Estfeld and oon acre in ye Westfeld."' The enclosure award and plan show two large and ap- proximately equal fields. East and West.' Grant of " decern acras terre arabilis . . . scil., V in orientali campo [in 3 parcels] et V in occidentali campo [in 6 parcels]." ' Survey. " Et decem acre seminate, id est, decem acre ex una parte viUe et decem ex altera parte faciunt unam bovatam. ... " "• The enclosure award allots 2500 acres in North field. South field, and the Marsh." Survey of the manor. Often one-third of a holding is enclosed pasture, but the remainder is divided be- tween East field and West field."^ Assignment of dower. The arable transferred comprises in campo orientali 5 acres in 9 parcels in campo occidentali s acres in 8 parcels." Grant of 8 acres, of which 4 lie ad umbram and 4 ad solemM ' Cott. MS., Vesp. K XVIII, f. 27- (XIII cen. copy.] ' Ibid., f. 606. [XIII cen. copy.] ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. 10/57, 1- 4&. 6 Jas. I. ' Exch. K. R., M. B. 43, ff. 1-36. 39 Eliz. « W. O. Massingberd and W. Boyd, Final Con- cords (London, 1896), i. 27. 4 John. « Harl. MS. 3640, f. 98. [Late XIV cen. copy.] ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. 10/38. 38 Hen. VIII. » C. P. Recov. Ro., 52 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1809. • Cott, MS., Vesp. E XVIII, f. 96. [XIII cen. copy.] i» Rents. & Survs., Ro. 406. 7 Hen. VII. " C. P. Recov. Ro., i Geo. IV, Trin. 1820. « Rents. & Survs., Portf. 10/57. 6 Jas. I. " C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 37 (12). 7 Edw. III. " Massingberd and Boyd, Final Concords, i. 284. iS Hen. III. APPENDIX II 475 Township Stainton Stubton Thurlby Ulceby Winceby Baston Grimsby, [Great] Caboume Swallow Tetney Thorganby Weelsby Harrington Leadenham Leasingham Description Grant of three selions, of which one lies in aquilonali campo and two lie in mistrali campo.^ From a bovate are granted 4 acres of land in the North field and 3I acres in the South field.^ The demesne arable lies in campo qui dicitur Westfeld in 6 " culture " and in campo qui dicitur Estfeld in 7 " pecie." ' Grant of a half-bo vate, scil., " V acras ex una parte ville et V acras ex alia parte." Two bovates lie in Est campo in 6 parcels and in West campo in 6 parcels.* Grant of a half-bovate which lies " in boriali parte ville ... in tribus locis et in meridionali parte in quatuor locis." ^ Extent. " De predictis iii'^x acris terre arabilis XXX acre po^sunt seminari per annum. ... Et residuum iacebit ad warectam et tunc nichil valet quia in communi." * Extents. At Grimsby " sunt . . . de terns dominicis iiii"iiii acre terre arabilis de quibus xlii acre pos- sunt seminari quolibet anno et alie xlii acre iacent quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi." The demesne lands of the other manors of the abbot of Grimsby are similarly described.' Extent. " Sunt in dominico iiii" acre terre arabilis . . . et xl acre possunt seminari per annum . . . et re- siduum iacet ad warectam et tunc nichil valet quia in communi." * Extent. " Sunt in dominico xii bovate terre unde vi bovate possunt seminari per aimum. ... Et re- sidue vi bovate terre iacebunt ad warectam et tunc nichil valent quia in communi." ' Extent. " Sunt in dominico clx acre terre arabilis de quibus possunt seminari per annum iiii" . . . et totum residuum nichil valet quia iacet warectum et in communi."'" > Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVIII. PCIII cen. copy.] ' Massingberd and Boyd, Final Concords, i. 244. 15 Hen. III. ' Cott. MS., Nero C VII, f. 149- li Hen. IV.] « Cott. MS., Vesp., E XVIII, fE. 15, 12. [1280- 1318, and late XIII cen. copy.] 5 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XX, f. 116. [XIV cen. copy.] • C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 38 (28). 8 Edw. III. ' Add. MS. 6165, fl. 63-6S. S Hen. IV. s C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 39 (3). 8 Edw. III. 9 Ibid., F. 40 (8). 8 Edw. III. w Ibid., F. SI (s). II Edw. III. 476 APPENDIX II Township Morton Ringstone Searby Description Extent. " Sunt in dominico clx acre terre arabilis unde medietas potest seminari per annum . . . et residu- um nihil valet per annum quia incommuni campo."' Extent. Phraseology and areas are like those of the extent of Leasingham.' Extent. " Sunt in dominico ex acre terre quorum Iv acre quolibet anno seminabiles . . . et Iv iacent ad warectam et in communi et ideo nullius valoris." ' Lincolnshire. Three-field Townships Burton iuxta Lincoln Canwick Doddington Gedney and Gouxhill Kexby Scotter Stowe Upton Extent. " Quelebet bovata continet xii acras terre unde possunt seminari quolibet anno . . . viii acre . . . et residuum . . . quod iacet ad warectam nichil valet pro eo quod iacet in communi." * Extent. " Sunt in dominico vi"viii acre terre arabilis de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum et residuum nichil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in communi."' Extent. " Sunt in dominico vi** acre terre arabilis quarum iiii" possunt seminari per annum . . . et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent. " Sunt in dominico vi" acre terre arabilis quarum iiii" possunt seminari per annum et valet acra quum seminatur xii d. . . . et quum non semi- natur iacet warecta et in communi." ' Extent of the demesne, which comprises " in campo australi xliii acre terre arabilis et dimidia in campo occidentali xxxii acre terre arabilis in campo boriali xxxvii acre et tres rode terre ara- bilis."* Extent of the demesne, which comprises 20 parcels lying in campo qui dicitur Midilfeld 26 parcels lying in campo boriali 21 parcels lying in campo occidentali? The enclosure award makes allotments in three large fields, Skelton, Normanby, and West.'" Extent of the demesne, which comprises " in campo oriehtali xxiiii acre et dimidia in campo boriali xvi acre in campo occidentali xxi acre." " ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 37 (22). 8 Edw. III. 2 Ibid., F. SI (S). II Edw. III. 3 Ibid., F. 59 (8). 13 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 68 (14). 17 Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. 54 (11). 12 Edw. III. « Ibid., F. 52 (j). II Edw. III. ' Ibid., F. S4 (10). 12 Edw. HI. 8 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 409. 18 Edw. I. • Cott. MS., Nero C VII, f. 210. [1 Hen. IV.] '» C. P. Recov. Ro., 49 Geo. Ill, HU. 1808. " Rents. & Survs., Ro. 409. [18 Edw. I.] APPENDIX II Ml Northamptonshire. Two-field Townships Township Description Adstone Grant Of 171 acres of arable, viz., 7f acres in campo occidentali in 19 parcels and 9j acres in campo korientali in 26 parcels.^ Althorp Grant of a messuage and 4 acres of arable, viz., due in una parte campi in 3 parcels et due in alia parte campi in 3 parcels.'' Astcote 1 Transfer of " quatuor viginti acras terre in campis de Pattishall l Pateshulle, Acheskote et Edeweneskote, viz., " Edeweneskote " J quadraginta acre de warecta et quadraginta acre terre seminate." ' Bodington Grant of 4 acres of arable, viz., 2 in the eastern field and 2 in the western field. * Brackley Grant of 8 acres in the fields, viz., in the South field 4 acres in 7 parcels in the North field 4 acres in 7 parcels.' Brackley Grant of 20 acres in the fields, viz., in the North field 10 acres in half-acre parcels in the South field 6| acres in half-acre parcels in the Baulond 2 acres and in a croft i acre. * Canons Ashby " Tarrer of Thomas Gaywood's londs yn the Estfelld & the Westfelld," viz., in the East field 2 acres and 90 " yards " in 9 parcels in the West field 20 acres and 42 "yards" in 8 parcels.' Chalcombe A long terrier of the lands of Chalcombe Priory. The arable is divided into two series of parcels, one comprising 765 acres, the other 77I. Owing to an injury to the manuscript, the names of the two fields are missing in connection with the arable, but are given in connection with the meadow as East and West. " Culworth Grant of 62 acres, viz., a croft of 4 acres, and in campo boriali 28 acres in 72 parcels in campo australi 30 acres similarly subdivided.' Drayton Grant of 41 acres in the fields, viz., in campo de Norht 2j acres in 5 parcels et in campo de Su' 2\ acres in s parcels.'" 1 Anc. Deeds, B 239. [Early XIV cen.l 2 Cott. MS., Tib. E V, f. 496. PCIV cen. copy.] » Harl. Char. 57 F 24. s Edw. I. * Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds, C 97. [1190- 1200.] s Ibid., 4. [c. 1260.1 6 Ibid., 63. [c. 1260.I ' Rents'." & Survs., Portf. 13/20. [Hen. VIII.] » Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 378. (Mid. XIV cen.] ' Add. Char. 4428s. 24 Edw. I. 10 Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, f. 40. [XIII cen. copy.] 478 APPENDIX II Township Evenley Evenley Farthinghoe Fawsley Flower Gayton Haddon, West Harleston Harpole Harrowdon Description Grant of 2 acres in the fields, viz., in the Eastern field i| acres and in the Western field \ acre. There are several similar charters.' Transfer of 10 acres, viz., 5 acres of arable in the East field and 5 acres of arable in the West field.^ Grant of all the land which Hallough held, viz., a mes- suage, croft, and 6 acres in one field and 6 in another.' Grant of " due acre terre de eorum dominico . . . scil., in campo aquilonari unam acram in campo australi unam acram." * Grant from the demesne of " decem acre terre in campo orientali et decem acre terre in campo occidentali et quinque in campo orientali et quinque acre in campo occidentaU." ' Grant of i6j acres of arable, viz., in campo occidentali 7I acres in 12 parcels (the char- ter is injured and the remaining 8| acres do not appear) " cum duabus rodis prati quarum una iacet in campo occidentali et altera in campo orientali." ' Terrier of " totam terram subscriptam in campis, viz., in campo australi [several parcels] in campo boriali [several parcels]." ' Grant of 12 acres, viz., 6 acres in campo australi and 6 in campo boriali. Grant of 75 acres, viz., in campo australi 35 acres in 7 parcels in campo boriali 4 acres in 8 parcels.* Grant of a toft and [field name omitted] 2J acres in 3 parcels and in alio campo a head-acre and 3 half-acres.' A long but probably incomplete terrier locating parcels in " Estfeld " and in " Westfeld."i» 1 Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds, B 178. [c. 1220- 30.1 ' Bodl., Rawl. B 408, f. 456. [XV cen copy, in English, of an old charter,] ' Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds, B 246. [c. 1200.I < Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, f. 104. [1231-64.I 6 Ped. Fin., 171-7-86. 4 John. • Cott. MS., Tib. E V, fi. 130, 1306. [XIV cen. copy.] ' Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, f. 1206. [XV cen. copy.] » Cott. MS., Nero C XII, ff. 174, 176. (Late XIII cen. copy.] • Cott. MS., Tib. E V, f. igb. [XIV cen. copy.) w Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, t. 320. [Late XV cen.] APPENDIX II 479 Township Heyford, Nether Holdenby Hothorp Kislingbury Preston Radstone Rushton Southorp Staverton Sulgrave Thrup Description Grant of 3 acres, scil., in occidentaU campo 2 acres in 4 parcels in orientali campo i acre in 2 parcels.' Grant of 36 acres of arable '' de libero meo dominico, scil., decern et octo acre in campo orientali et decern et octo acre in campo occidentali." * Grant for a chapel " de singulis virgatis, unam acram ex una parte ville et aliam ex altera."' Grant of 2 acres, scil., in campo occidentali i acre in 2 parcels in campo orientali i acre in 2 parcels. ^ Grant of 95 acres of demesne arable and g\ acres of demesne meadow, scil., in campo versus aquilonem 44 acres of arable and 6| acres of meadow in campo versus australem 51 acres of arable and 2f acres of meadow.' Grant of 2 acres, viz., in the South field i acre in 2 parcels in the North field i acre in 2 parcels.' Grant of a mill, " cum duabus acris terre, ima in uno campo et alia in alio." ' Transfer of a half-bovate comprising in campo boriali 8 selions in 4 places and in campo atistrali 6 selions in 4 places.* Many charters detailing land in campus borialis and campus australis, e.g., in campo boriali 55 acres in 7 parcels in campo atistrali $ acres in 9 parcels (f. 73).' Transfer of " unam virgatam . . . domum et cotagium, scil., unam acram terre cum dimidia acra terre in uno campo et tantum in alio campo et item sex acras terre de inlonde in uno campo et unam acram prati et sex acras in alio campo et unam acram prati." '" Terrier of the demesne of the prior of Chalcumbe, which comprised 1 Cott. MS., Tib. E V, f. 36J. [XIV cen. copy.] 2 Add. Char. 21897. [XIII cen.] ' Add. Char. 22012. [Early XIII cen.] • Cott. MS., Tib. E V, f. 30b. PCIV cen. copy.] 6 Ped, Fin., 171-3-62; printed. Pipe Roll See., Ptibl., 1900, xxiv, no. 225. 10 Rich. I. " Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds, B 148. [c.1220- 30.] ' Cott. MS., Tib. E V, f. 84. [XIV cen. copy.] 8 Exch. Treas. Recpt., M. B. 71, f. 52. 1393. » Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, S. 73-82. PCV cen. copies.] >» Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, f. 163*. [c. 1200. 48o APPENDIX II Township Thrup {continued) Thurlaston Weedon Welton Welton Woodford Description in campo boriali 4gJ acres in 68 parcels in campo australi 421 acres in 61 parcels.' Transfer of 4 acres of arable, viz., 2 acres in 4 parcels ex una parte campi 2 acres in 4 parcels ex alia parte campi? A series of leases assigning to tenants parcels in North field and South field. The longest (no. 40) de- scribes in North field 82 parcels consisting of 44 lands, 23 butts, 29 " yards," and 20 leys in South field 85 parcels consisting of 37 lands, 18 butts^ 50 " yards," and 26 leys.' Grant of 15 acres of arable, viz., in campo occidentals \ acre in i parcel in campo orientali i acre in 2 parcels.* Transfer of 6 acres of arable, scO., " iii in uno campo et iii in alio." * Transfer of 24 acres of arable in the fields, viz., " xii acras in uno campo et xii acras in altero campo." ^ Pattishall Stowe Warden, [Chipping] Weston iuxta Weedon Extent of the demesne arable, " unde medietas potest seminari per annimi. ... Et altera medietas nic- hil valet per annum quia iacet ad warectam et tunc est communis." ' Extent. " Item sunt ibidem in dominico ccxl acre terre arabihs de quibus possunt seminari per an- num cxx et . . . cxx acre terre iacent ad warectam que nihil valent per annum quia dicta warecta est communis omnibus tenentibus ibidem." ' Extent of the demesne arable, "de quibus medietas po- test seminari per annum et . . . aha medietas que iacet ad warectam nichil valet per annum quia in communi campo." ' Extent. " Predicta virgata continet xxxii acras terre quarum medietas potest seminari per annum. . . . Et alia medietas quolibet anno ad warectam cuius proficuus nichil valet quia iacet in communi campo." '" 1 Eich. Aug. Of., M. B. 378, £. 29. [Mid. XIV cen.] 2 Cott. MS., CaUg. A XIII, f, 1176. [Late XIV cen. copy.] » All Souls MSS., Terriers 37, 38, 40. 1586-87. ■ Anc. Deeds, A 3065. 5 Edw. III. ' Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, f. 826. IXV cen. copy.l « Cott. MS., Vesp. EXVII, f. 128*; [XVcen. copy.] ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 47 (s). 10 Edw. III. 8 Ibid., F. I (i2). I Edw. III. » Ibid., F. 40 (6). 8 Edw. HI. i« Ibid., F. 68 (22). 17 Edw. III. APPENDIX II 481 Northamptonshire. Township Adstone, or Canons Ashby Barnack and Sainton Bamack Blakesley Bozeat Braybrook Braybrook Braybrook Brixworth • Rents. & Survs., Portf. 13/19. [Hen. VIII.I * Ped. Fin., 171-2-24: printed, Pipe RoU Soc., PubL, 1898, xxiii, no, 117. 9 Rich. I. » Cott. MS., Faust. B III, ff. 586, 636, 656, 756. 4 Edw. II and 2 Edw. III. < Rents. & Survs., Portf. 13/15. IHen. VII.l Three-meld Townships Description Terrier of land belonging to the prior of Ashby, viz., [field rubric omitted] 6| acres in 1 2 parcels in campo borienlali 6| acres in 12 parcels in campo occidentali 8 acres in 15 parcels.' Retention of xv acres from one carucate, " unde V acre iacent in campo inter Bemake et PUesgate et alie v acre iacent in campo inter viam de Stanford etWel... e[Walcot?] et iiii acre versus occidentalem partem viUe de B emake et i acra versus aquilonem." ^ A series of charters incidentally mentioning " campus australis," " campus orientalis," " campus occi- dentalis," and " Aldefeld." No holding is of any size and none is divided among these fields.' Terrier of a virgate which comprises in campo orientali 6f acres in 1 1 parcels in campo borienlali 7^ acres in 13 parcels in campo occidentali 6| acres in 15 parcels.* Terrier of All Souls lands in the tenure of Wm. BetteU, showing, along with 2j acres of meadow, in the Wood field 20 lands in 14 parcels in the Diche field ig lands in 17 parcels in Sandwell field i acre and 24 lands in 1 7 parcels.' Grant of " triginta acras terre de domenico . . . scil., undecim acras in campo versus Oxendun' [Oxendon Magna] undecim acras in campo versus Bugedon' [Bowden] undecim acras in campo versus Deresburc [Des- borough]." ^ Two charters locating small parcels "in campo orientali, in campo occidentali, et in aquilonali partecampi."' A terrier of the glebe, which comprises in Loteland field 29 parcels of arable and 1 2 leys in Hedickes field 29 parcels of arable and 1 7 leys in Amsborrow and Black fields 27 parcels of arable and 4 leys.' Rental of ten virgates of land, each of which is described in detail. One comprises j acre of meadow and in Schotenwelle field 6 acres in 11 parcels in Demmyswelle field 6 acres in 11 parcels in Whaddon field 7I acres in 11 parcels.' » All Souls MSS., Terrier 35. 1580. 6 Ped. Fin., 171-12-210. 9 John. ' Cott. MS., Calig. A XII, ff. 105, 106. [XIII cen. copy.] " Stowe MS. 795, f. 219. 1631. » Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, ff. 183-194- I Hen. VI. 482 APPENDIX II Township Clopton Cul worth Culworth Desborough Draughton Drayton Evenley Hardingstone Holdenby Description Grant of 42J acres " de predicta virgata terre, scil., xvi acre et una roda inter le Frid et exitum de Clape- tom versus occidentem xiii acre et una roda inter le predictum exitum et feodum Sancti Gutlaci xiii acre et una roda inter le predictum feodum Sancti Gutlaci et Swinehaw." ' Grant of two acres, viz., in campo australi \, J in campo occidentali J in campo boriali j, J, J.^ Terrier of a yard-land, which contains in the South field 12 " yerdes" and 5 acre in 13 parcels in the West field 19 " yerdes " and | acre in the North field 34 "yerdes" and \ acre in 30 parcels.' Grant of common of pasture " per totum campum de Deseborug tam in boscis quam in campis tribus." * Grant of a cottage and " sex acre terre arabilis de terris dominicalibus . . . quarum due acre simul iacent in campo australi septem rode simul iacent in campo boriali sex rode simul iacent in campo orientali et quinque dimidie rode simul iacent super eandem cul- turam." * A survey assigning to West field 529 acres to North field 573 acres and to East field 414 acres. The copyholds and leaseholds are divided among the same three fields." A terrier of two yard-lands, which comprise in the West field 17 acres in 15 parcels in the South field 13 acres in 13 parcels in the East field 17 acres in 16 parcels.' Grant of 3 acres of arable, viz., in campo australi i acre in 2 parcels in campo medio i acre in 2 parcels in campo [septen] trionali i acre in 2 parcels.' Transfer of several parcels of arable located in the West field, called Langeland field, in the Wood field, and in Cargatt field.' 1 Fed. Fin., 171-7-80. 4 John. 2 Add. Char. 44291. 7 Edw. III. " Add. Char. 44354. [Early XVI cen.] < Cott. MS., Otho B XIV, f. 169. [Late XIV cen. copy.] ' Add. Char. 81829. 6 Hen. V. « D. of Lane, M. B. 113, S. 34 sq. 13 Eliz. ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. 13/25. [Hen. VIII or later.] » Cott. MS., Tib. EV, ff. iis, 1156. [XIV cen. copy.] • Add. Char. 21991. 32 Hen. VIII. APPENDIX II 483 Township Holcot Isham Kislingbury Kislingbury Maidwell Market Harborough and Great Bowden Moulton Northampton Oundle Paulers Pury Pilsgate Description The numerous parcels of a half-virgate are divided among East field, Middle field, and West field.' Terrier of a virgate, which comprises in campo auslrali 9 acres in i parcel in magna campo boriali SJ acres in 4 parcels in campo occidentali 5I acres in 3 parcels.^ Transfer of 10 acres of arable, viz., in campo orientali 3I acres in 11 parcels iti campo australi 4j acres in 13 parcels in campo occidentali i\ acres in 4 parcels.' Long terrier of the demesne arable, which lies in many- parcels in East field. South field, and West field.^ Grant of- two cottages and 45 acres lying " in campo boreali, in campo occidentali, et in campo australi."* Transfer of 20 acres in the fields of Great Bowden almost equally divided among South field. East field, and North field. Other charters divide their acres similarly (pp. 178, 196).' A long terrier with apparently even division of parcels among North field, South field, and West field.' Terrier of a carucate lying in the fields of North- ampton, and comprising in campo orientali 32 acres in le Middelfeld l^\ acres in campo boriali 311 acres.' Extent of the demesne arable, which consists of 65 J acres in 5 " culture " in campo qui vacatur Inham- feld 94! acres in 9 " pecie " in campo qui vacatur Howefeld 961 acres in 10 "pecie" in campo qui vacatur Halm- feldy Richard Stuemyn holds a messuage, two cottages, one- half acre, and " xxx acras terre errabilis et ii acras prati iacentes in communibus campis predictis vocatis parkefeild, Totehilfeild, et Myddelfeild."'" Terriers of several holdings, with considerable variation in the distribution of acreS among fields. One terrier (f. 145) has about the same number of acres in Nether field. West field, and South field. " 1 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, £. 52. 10 Edw. II. ' Ibid., f. nsb. [Mid. XV cen.] 3 Add. Char. 22078. 14 Edw. III. ' Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, f. 300. (Mid. XV cen.] 5 Add. Cliar. 22269. 6 Hen. VI. « J. E. Stocks and W. B. Bragg, Market Har- borough Parish Records (London, 1890), p. 161. J343. ' Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, ff. 304-309. 9 Hen. VI. 8 Ibid., f. 2996. [Mid. XV can.] s Cott. MS., Nero C VII, £. 1546. i Hen. IV. i» Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 419, f. 3. 32 Hen. VIII. " Cott. MS,, Faust. B III, £f. 145-152. [Mid. XIV cen.] 484 APPENDIX II Township Walcot Wellingborough Braybrook Clapton Corby Dallington Deanshanger Harpole Higham Ferrers Rushden DescripUon Extent of the demesne arable, which consists of ig acres in 7 places in campo occidentali IS acres in 4 places in campo australi 53 acres in 10 places in campo orientali (the last in- cluding 29 acres in Northdyhcroft) .' A terrier, which locates many rood parcels as follows: in East field 33 roods and 10 " todel " in Up field 21 roods and 11 " todel " in West field 32 roods and 4I " todel." ^ Extent of the demesne arable, "quarum due partes pos- sunt seminari per anmun . . . et tertia pars . . . que iacet ad warectam nichil valet quia in commimi campo." ^ Extent of the demesne arable. " Et tertia pars eius- dem terre quolibet anno iacet ad warectam et est nullius valoris quia in communi campo." * Extent. "Sunt in dominico ix" acre terre arabilis unde cxx possunt seminari per annum . . . et residuum iacet ad warectam et tunc nichil valet quia in com- muni." ' Extent of the demesne arable. " Et tertia pars eius- dem terre quolibet anno iacet ad warectam et est nullius valoris quia in communi campo." ' Extent of the demesne arable, " de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum. . . . Et tertia pars que iacet ad warectam nichil valet per annum quia semper tempore warecta [terra] est communis omnibus tenentibus ibidem." ' Extent of the demesne arable, of which " tertia pars. . . quando iacet ad warectam nichU valet quia tunc est communis."* Extent of the demesne arable, of which two-thirds may be sown yearly. " Et dicunt quod residuum de terra predicta iacens ad warectam nihil valet per annum quia tempore warecta [terra] est commimis omnibus tenentibus ibidem." ' Extent of the demesne arable, of which two-thirds may be sown yearly. " Et warecte terre residue nihil valent quia semper tempore warecta [haec terra] est communis omnibus tenentibus ibidem." "> 1 Cott. MS., Nero C VII, f. 1646. i Hen. IV. 2 Cott. MS., Vesp.E XVII, f. 3096. 10 Hen. VI. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 40 (6). 8 Edw. Ill • Cott. MS., Cleop. C II, f. 123. so Edw. III. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 44 (6). 9 Edw. III. " Cott. MS., Cleop. C H, f. 123. 20 Edw. III. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 47 (8). 10 Edw. III. 8 Ibid., F. 53 C18). 12 Edw. III. » Ibid., F. 6. I Edw. III. i» Ibid. APPENDIX II 485 Township Description Wodenhoe Extent of the demesne arable, "quarum due partes pos- sunt seminar! per annum . . . et tertia pars . . . iacebit ad warectam et tunc nichil valet per annum quia in communi campo." ' Nottinghamshire. Three-field Townships Cotgrave Two bovates are withheld from a grant of one and one- fourth carucates, scil., " una bovata terre quam Warinus de Boville tenuit et que iacet in campo aquilonari et orientali et una bovata terre quam Walterus Capel tenuit et que iacet in campo occi- dentali." ^ Hucknall Torkard Transfer of toft, croft, and 2f acres of arable, viz., I acre in the West field 5 acre in the East field J acre ad capud orientate vitle I acre in the South field in 2 parcels.' Keyworth Long terrier of a holding, specifying many selions but in part illegible. The parcels seem to be pretty evenly divided among " Brokfeld, campus de Senygow, and le Wooldefelt." * Kirton Grant of 35 acres, of which " una acra iacet in Nortfeld . . . et altera in Holims et una acra in Suthfeld . . . et dimidia acra in medio campo." Each of these three fields is mentioned singly in three following charters.* Knighton Grant of two bovates, scil., in campo occidentali 51 acres in 11 parcels in campo aquilonari 7f acres in 9 parcels in Midddfeld 6 acres in 9 parcels.' Walkeringham Terriers of the holdings of eleven tenants, the acres being often divided equally among three fields. West, North, and East.' Wandesley Extent. " Sunt in dominico xx acre terre . . . de qui- bus tertia pars iacet quolibet anno in warecto et pastura inde nihil valet quia iacet in communi." ' ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 43 do). 9 Edw. III. 2 Fed. Fin., 182-5-142. i6 Hen. III. ' Exch. K. R., M. B. 23, i- 66. 14 Hen. IV. « Cott. MS., Titus C XII, f. 147. [XIV cen. copy.] s Harl. MS. 1063, i. 185S. [XVII cen. copy of an early charter.] « Fed. Fin., 182-4-84. 10 Hen. III. ' Rents. & Survs., Fortf. 13/87. 1608. 8 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, so (24). 11 Edw. III. 486 APPENDIX II Township Barford Bensington Bicester [King's End] Bletchingdon Burford Chadlington Chadlington Chipping Norton Churchill Cleveley Cornwell Oxfordshire. Two-pield Townships Description Terrier of a messuage and one virgate of arable in the fields, viz., in campo occidentali loj acres in 22 parcels in campo orientali 9 J acres and 3 " forere " in 24 par- cels.' Grant to the Templars of a messuage and lOj acres in campo australi in 13 furlongs and iij acres in campo aquilonari in 13 furlongs.^ Extent, with certain holdings described in detail. One half- virgate (e.g., p. 573) contains in South field io| acres in 21 parcels in North field 11 j acres in 23 parcels.' Grant of 32 J acres in many parcels, viz., " in one felde " 14 acres and " in anothyr felde " ^^\ acres.* Terrier of the glebe, which comprises ■ " in le Estfyld " 475 acres in 51 parcels " in le Westfylde " 48 acres in 52 parcels.' Transfer of four holdings, the acres of which are equally divided between East field and West field, viz., 2 vs. li, 27 vs. 27, 15 vs. 14, 6 vs. 5^.* Grant of " duas acras in uno campo et duas in alio." ' Valor. " Sunt ibidem ii carucate terre continentes per estimationem clx acre terre arabilis quarum iiii iiii- sementem." ' " Habebit eciam dictus Vicarius v acras terre arabilis in uno campo et v in alio, cum prato ad easdem pro rata pertinente." ' Transfer of a messuage, 3 acres enclosed, and in campo orientali 171 acres in 1 7 parcels in campo occidentali 12 acres in 16 parcels.'" Grant of 4 acres "in Cumbe near Heanhulle in one field and in another field 4 acres towards the way to Kaigham." " '"^ acre iacent quolibet anno ad warectam . . . et acre quolibet anno seminande ad utramque 1 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 378. [Mid. XIV cen.l = Bodl., Wood Donat. 10, f. 99. [Copy of Edw. I.l ' Kennett, Parochial Antiquities, i. 563-578. 19 Edw. II. ' Bodl, Rawl. B 408, f. SJ. [XV ccn. transcript of a deed of Edw. I.l 6 Bodl., OxfordshireArchdeaconry Papers. 1576. • Eynsham Carll. (ed. Salter), i. 247. [1264-68.I ' Ibid. 107. [c. 1173.] 8 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 33. (Hen. VI.l ' Cartl. St. Frideswide (ed. Wigram), ii. 286. 134°. '° Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), ii. 172. [c. 1280.] " W. H. Turner and H. O. Coxe, Calendar oj Charters and Rolls in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1878), p. 324. \c. 1220.1 APPENDIX II 487 Township Enstone Faringdon, Little Fulwell Hampton Gay Hanwell Kensington Hook Norton Kirtlington Lidstone Middleton Milcombe Milton-under- Wychwood Newington " Juel " Vescription Grant of 6 acres in the field, viz., in campo del Suht 3 acres in 6 parcels in campo del Norht 3 acres in 5 parcels.' Description of the arable demesne, of which 2301 acres are in campo boriali and 1565 acres in campo australi? Grant of one acre of arable in campo orientali and one in campo occidentali? Grant of " i halfe hyde of londe in Gaihampton con- teynynge XXV acres of land in on feelde and also many in an othyr feelde." ■■ Transfer of 4 acres, of which " due acre iacent coniunctim in uno campo . . . et alie due acre iacent coniunctim in alio campo." * Grant of a messuage and 4 acres of arable, viz., 2 acres in the North field and 2 in the South field.* Grant of a messuage, | acre of meadow, and 2 acres in the East field in 4 parcels and 2 acres in another field.' Grantof partof ahalf-virgate,viz., i acre of meadow and in uno campo 5! acres in 7 parcels and in alio campo 5! acres in 6 parcels.* Grant of 4 acres, sell., " in uno campo duas acras et in alio campo duas acras." ' Grant of 4 acres, of which 2 lie in the East field and 2 in the West field."" Grant of 16 acres of arable in the fields, viz., 7 acres in the South field in 7 parcels I acre in the West field in i parcel 8 acres in the North field in 8 parcels." Grant of 5 acres in uno campo in 5 parcels and 5 acres in alio campo in 5 parcels.'^ " John Busseby tenet i acram terre ... in utroque campo. . . .Hugo Gilbert tenet imessuagiumetunam acram terre in uno campo et duas terre in alio."'' 1 Reg, Monast. de Witichelcamba Ced. Royce), ii. 175. [c. 12/10.1 2 Cott. MS., Nero A XIl, f. 1006. PCV cen. copy.] 8 Kennett, Parochial Antiquities, i. 306. [20 Hen. III.] • Bodl., Rawl. B 408, f. gb. [XV cen. copy of a deed of Edw. I.] " Add. Char. 22016. 16 Rich. II. ' Edward Marshall, Early History oj Woodstock Manor (Oxford, 1873), p. 408. [XIII cen.) ' Turner and Coxe, Calendar oJ Charters, etc., p. 32g. [c. 1200-10.] 8 Cartl. St. Frideswide (ed. Wigram), ii. 215. [c. 1210-28.] ^ Reg, Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), ii. 182. [c. 1235.] •» Bodl, Rawl. B 408, f. 91. [Edw. I.] " Ibid., f. 886. [c. 1216-30.] 12 Eynsham Cartl. (ed. Salter), p. 117. [1160- 80.] n Hundred Rolls, ii. 8490-4. 7 Edw. I. 488 APPENDIX II Township Description Newington, South Grant of one virgate from the demesne, viz., in campo aquilonali lo acres in 12 parcels in campo australi 11 acres in 11 parcels.' Newnham Murren One holding comprises " terra arabilis in communibus campis ibidem, viz.. South field per estimationem Ixv acre North field per estimationem Ixxxvi acre." ^ Piddington Grant inter alia of tithes from 2 acres of demesne mead- ow, " scil., quando occiden talis campus seminatur duas primas acras de prato quod didtur West- mede, quando vero orientalis campus seminatur latitudinem duarum acrarum in prato quod dicitur Langdale."' Rollright Dower of Johanna, wife of Adam le Despencer, com- prises I of a messuage, a pond, and in campo boriali 80 acres of arable and in campo australi 60 acres of arable.* Rousham Grant of a messuage and 9 acres of demesne in one field and 9 acres in another.' Sandford Grant of one acre in the North field and one acre in the South field.* Shipton Grant to the Templars of a croft and 2 acres in campo versus orientem in 2 parcels and 2 acres in alio campo in 3 parcels.' Sibford Grant to Templars of 10 acres of demesne arable, viz., 5 acres in uno campo and s acres in alio.^ Stratton Audley Grant of 40 acres of demesne, scil., in uno campo 20 acres in 5 furlongs and in altera campo 20 acres.' Tew, Great " Adam Prat tenet i cottagium et ii acras terre in utroque campo." '" Wilcot Terrier of two virgates held by the Templars: in East field 24 acres in 10 places in West field 24 acres in 13 places.'' 1 Harl. MS. 4028. [XVIII cen. copy of an early charter.] 2 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 388, t. 67. 6 Jas. I. 3 Rennett, Parochial Antiquities, i. 103. 6-7 Hen. I. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. I, F. 134(3) 34 Edw. I. s Turner and Coxe, Calendar of Charters, etc., p. 362. [c. Z200.] 8 Ibid., 363. 4 Edw. II. ' Bodl., Wood Donat. 10, f. 76. lEdw. I.] » Ibid., f. 94- [Edw. I.] B Kennett, Parochial Antiquities, i. 188. [29 Hen. II.] '» Hundred Rolls, ii. 8460. 7 Edw. I. " Bodl., Wood Donat. 10, f. 38J. [Edw. I.] APPENDIX II 489 OxrORDSHISE, Township Alkerton Alvescot Ardley Astall Aston, Steeple Brize Norton Broughton Poggs Cottisford Duns Tew Fulbrook Glimpton Kencott 1 1647. « 1684. ' 168s. « 1685. 3 [Before 1679.I ' i68s. ' 1634. GtEBE Terriers of the Seventeenth Century {Bodl., Oxfordshire Archdeaconry Papers) Description of the Glebe " Lands and Layes on the South side 21, on the North side 19." 1 In a field called BarreU 4I acres in 5 parcels in a field called Woo-Lands i acre in 2 parcels. In the Upper Fields are 17 acres of ground, viz., gi acres in the East field in 18 parcels and 7I acres in the West field in 14 parcels.^ Two yard-lands, viz., in West field 22 acres in 9 parcels in East field 26 acres, 8 butts, in 10 parcels.' In the East field 3 J acres in 3 parcels in the West field 4 acres in 4 parcels.* In the lower field 1 2 acres in 5 parcels in the upper field 9 acres in 4 parcels.' In the grove field 361 acres, 5 lands, in 34 parcels in Ringborough field 47 acres, 4 lands, in 35 parcels.^ Two yard-lands, viz., in the East field 3if acres in 31 parcels in the West field 37 acres in 30 parcels, with 2 crofts containing 4 acres.' " The glebe land in Cottesford fielde lies for 4 yard lands divided into two fields: whereof one field, which lieth Eastward, containeth 39 acres, and the other field, which lieth Westward, containeth 2t acres." * Two yard-lands described in two (not very legible) columns, containing many parcels and headed "on the North side " and " on the South side." ' In the West field 33 acres in 25 parcels in the East field 30^ acres in 20 parcels.'" On the north side of the town in the common fields 27I acres, 7 lands, i butt, in 25 parcels on the south side of Glimpton in the common fields 14 acres, 3 lands, in 9 parcels on the upper side of Woodstocke way [also on the south] 16 acres, 9 lands, in 13 parcels. There are closes, viz., 5 acres of arable, i acre of meadow, 4 acres of pasture, 19 acres of heath." In the West field 355 acres in 21 parcels, and in the Hitching 7 j acres, and in the "new broake ground" 15 acres to be sown with this field Late XVII cen. Printed by J. C. Blomfield, History 0/ the Present Deanery of Bicester (8 pts., London, 1882-94), "i- .?3. 1634. i» 1685. " 1685. 490 APPENDIX II Township Kencott {continued) Middleton Stony Shutford, West Stoke, South Tackley Westwell Description of the Glebe in the East field 32 acres in 24 parcels, and in the Hitching gi acres to be sown with this field.' In the South fields 32^ acres and 14 lands in 31 parcels in the North field 29 acres and 14 lands in 30 parcels.^ In the South field 46 acres in 18 parcels in the North field 46 acres in 27 parcels, with one other parcel of 20 acres.' In the little North field 3I acres in 5 parcels, in the great North field i3i acres in 28 parcels in the great South field 1 1 1 acres in 23 parcels. The total constitutes two yard-lands.* In the South field 21 acres in 11 parcels in the North field 20 acres in 1 1 parcels. There are closes of arable containing 6| acres." In the East field 44 acres in 22 parcels (one of them containing g acres) in the West field 37 acres in 22 parcels.' Township Aston and Cote Stoke, South Stoke Talmage Tew, Great Thomley 1634. 1679. Oxfordshire. Three-field Townships Description " There are . . . several Leyes of greensward lying in the common fields, two years mowed and the other fed [the fields being HoUiwell field. Windmill field, and Kingsway field.] " ' Extent of the demesne arable in three fields, " unde duo seminantur annuatim, tertius vero iacet warec- tus," viz., in campo australi 1 26 acres in campo medio 73} acres in campo aquilonari 64^ acres.' Grant to the Templars of one-half hide of demesne arable, viz., in campo aquilonari 15 acres in 3 places in campo australi 15 acres in 5 places in campo occidentali qui vacatur chelfelde 15 acres in 14 places.' Grant of 7 acres, viz., if acres in the North field in 4 parcels I J acres in the West field in 4 parcels 3 acres in the South field in 8 parcels 5 acre in the mede in the East field.'" Grant of s acres, i butt, and i of a meadow. The ara- ble comprises Carll. (ed. Salter), 1634. 1685. 1634- 1601. ' J. A. Giles, History of Bampton, Supplement, pp. 3, 7. 1657. 8 Eynsham Carll. {ed. Salter), ii. 118-128. 1366. ' Bodl., Wood Donat. 10, f. 53. lEdw. I.l >" Bodl., Rawl. B 408, f. 165. IXV cen. copy.) APPENDIX II 491 Township Thomley {continued) Bampton Finmere Kidlington Marston Description in the furlongs Bremor Gorstilond and Harsaeforlong 2 acres in 3 parcels in alio campo 2| acres in 4 parcels in alio campo toward Wormehale 5 acre and in Short- lond I butt.' Extent. " Sunt ibidem tres carucate terre continentes in se cxcvi acras unde due partes possunt quolibet anno seminari . . . et tertia pars nihil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in conununi." ^ Extent. " In dominico sunt cc acre terre arrabilis unde due partes possunt seminari." ' Extent. " Sunt duo carucate terre in dominico que continent cxlvi acre terre quarum due partes omni- modis annis seminari possunt et tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in campo communi ita quod nihil inde percipi potest." * " Est quedam terra in campo de Merston ultra domini- cum que . . . semper in tertio anno nichil reddit quia iacet warecta." ' Oxfordshire. Glebe Terriers of the Seventeenth Century (Bodl., Oxfordshire Archdeaconry Papers) Township Description of the Gtebe Bladon Two yard-lands, viz., in Church field 6 acres and 10 lands in 16 parcels in the Down field 21 lands in 19 parcels in Burley field 27 lands, 2 acres, 2 butts, in 25 parcels.' Bourton, Black In West Brook field next Alvescott 2 j acres in 5 parcels in the Downe field next Bourton 35 acres in 6 parcels in the Downe field next Norton ${ acres in 8 parcels.' Britwell Salome In the West field 18 acres in 10 parcels in the Hill field 6 acres in 6 parcels in the East field 6 acres in 6 parcels.' Chinnor In West Pond field 4 acres in 3 parcels in Great WinnoU field i acre, i land, in 2 parcels in Chinnor field 2 lands in 2 parcels.' Culham In Ham field 4j acres in 10 parcels in Middle field 6i acres in 13 parcels in Cositer field 6 acres in 11 parcels.'" Cuxham In the South field 10 acres in 13 parcels (" two of these acres are now tilled with the West field ") 1 Car//. St. Frideswide (ed. Wigram), ii. 158. [c. 1210-20.] 2 GQ.es, History of Bampton, p. liS. 36 Edw. III. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 56 (i). 12 Edw. III. < Ibid,, F. SI (3). II Edw. III. B Hundred Rolls, ii. 7116. 7 Edw. 1. s [c. 1685.1 ' 1635. 11 1685. ' 1634. » 1635. 492 APPENDIX II Township Cuxham Finmere Handborough Hardwick Heath Lewknor Newton Purcell Waterstock Wendlebury Weston, South Whitchurch 1634. 1634. Description oj the Glebe in the West field 9 acres in 7 parcels in the North field 9I acres in 7 parcels.' In South field 22 lands, 3 butts, 3 leys, in 27 parcels in Mill field 25 lands, 4 butts, 6 leys, in 35 parcels in the field next Fullwell 20 lands, 3 butts, 3 leys, 2 yards, 2 " foreshorters," in 30 parcels.' In the Church field 1 2 acres in 1 2 parcels in the Mill field 15 acres in 24 parcels in the South field 12 acres in 15 parcds. Also three closes of 7 acres and 10 acres of meadow.' In the Heeth field 14 lands, 4 " heads," in 3 parceb in the Mill field 20 lands in 7 parcels in Tinkers field 13 lands in 4 parcels.* [In the first field] 9 lands, i acre, i butt, in 6 parcels in the second field 7 lands, i acre, 1 butt, i yard, in 10 parcels in the third field 11 lands, 3 acres, i butt, 2 yards, in 12 parcels.' In the field next to Aston $ acres, 4 lands, 10 yards, 2 butts, in 16 parcels in the field next Shuerbom 5 acres, 12 lands, i yard, in 14 parcels in the middle field 8 acres, 5 lands, 5 yards, in 10 parcels." In the field toward Finmere (North field), 5 acres, i yard, in 6 parcels in the field butting upon broadmeadow (South field) 7 acres, i yard, 2 lands, 2 butts, in 11 parcels in the field adjoining Willoston lordship (West field) 7 acres, 4 yards, 2 lands, in 10 parcels.' In Conygere field (South field) 5 J acres in 8 parcels in Gravewaye field (East field) 3J acres in 5 parcels in Ham field (North field) 2\ acres in 4 parcels.' In the field toward Bisseter 17 lands, 3 butts, in 19 parcels in the field toward Charleton 12 lands in 12 pafcels in the field toward Weston 15 lands, 3 yards, i ley, in 13 parcels.' In Cope field 8 acres in 10 parcels in Stonie field 6 J acres in 7 parcels, and 2 butts of grass ground in Moshill field 17 J acres in 15 parcels, and i acre of grass ground.'" In the Parke field 40J acres in 23 parcels in the West field 3^ acres in 3 parcels « (Early XVII cen.] * 1601, » {c. 1601.] ■ 1704. ' 1634. " 1601. » 1679. "" 1635. APPENDIX II 493 Township Whitchurch (continue^ Wooton Description of tht Gleie in the East field 33I acres in 20 parcels in the Moore End field 16 acres in 13 parcels in Bozden field lOj acres in 14 parcels. These fields were probably grouped as three.' In the North field 25 acres in 8 parcels and probably I if acres of meadow at Greene Hitch 23 acres in 13 parcels in the West field 19 acres in 1 7 parcels with i ley.^ Oxfordshire. Adderbury, West Hanwell Heyford, Upper Kingham Somerton 1635- z6oz. Townships Divided into "Quarters," usually Four {Bodl., Oxfordshire Archdeaconry Papers) In the Flags quarter 3 acres, i land, in 4 parcels in Poinfurlong quarter 4 acres, 3 yards, in 4 parcels in Berryll quarter 2 acres in i parcel in Langland quarter 6 acres in 4 parcels.' In Debtcombe quarter 7 lands, 2 butts, 2 leas, 3 pikes, I yard, in 14 parcels in the Westfield quarter 6 lands, 2 butts, 5 leas, i headacre, i piece greensward, in 8 parcels in Lotrum quarter 8 lands, 4 butts, 3 yards, i head- acre, I "hade," in 16 parcels in Pit- Acre quarter 7 lands, 2 butts, 3 leas, i " hade," in II parcels.* In the field adjoining Nether Heyford and Calcott (Dean field in 1685) 21 ridges in another field called Stanhill 20 ridges in Lobdane-tree field (EImn field in 1685) 22 ridges in the field between the ways called Somerton way and above Oxford way 17 ridges in the lower field 11 ridges.' In the Ryeworth quarter 4 acres, 52 ridges (i ridge usually equals j acre), in 9 parcels in Wythcombe quarter 4 acres, 27 ridges, 24 butts, in II parcels in Broadmore quarter 2 acres, 59 ridges, 11 butts, in 8 parcels in Brookside or Adbridge quarter 4 acres, 7 ridges, 10 butts, in 6 parcels in TownehiU quarter " every yeares land," 2 acres, 6 ridges, and Rye close, in 4 parcels." In the wheat field lying toward Frittwell moor, 3 acres, 8 lands, 8 butts, in 10 parcels in the second field butting on the south side Ardley way, 7 acres, 7 lands, 4 butts, in 13 parcels 1722. 1680. ' 1679. ' 1685. Printed by Blomfield, Bicester, vi [pt. iil,59-6o. 494 APPENDIX II Township Somerton {continued)' Standlake Tadmarton Wigginton Description of the Glebe in the third field adjoining the way leading to Bister, 7 acres, i6 lands, 3 butts, in 12 parcels in the fourth field lying on the south side Bister way, S acres, 10 lands, 4 butts, in 12 parcels.^ In Standlake Little field 6 acres in 8 parcels in the Richland field 8 acres in 16 parcels in the North field gj acres in 19 parcels in the South field 6 acres in 12 parcels.^ In Blackland quarter i acre, 9 lands, i lea, in 1 1 parcels in Fulling mill quarter 3J acres, 7 lands, 4 leas, 3 butts, in 17 parcels in Leabrouch quarter 10 acres, 2 lands, 2 leas, in 14 parcels in Rattnill quarter 4! acres, 6 lands, i lea, 2 butts, in 14 parcels, and 9 " lottes '' of furzes in the heath.' In Milcome quarter 2 acres, 4 lands, in 6 parcels in Petsbush quarter 14 lands in 14 parcels in Midnill quarter 5 lands, 3 yards, i butt, in 8 par- cels, and 13 leys or other parcels of grass ground in South quarter 7 lands, 2 yards in 7 parcels.* Township Essendine Tinwell Whissendine Rutland. Three-field Townships Description Extent. " Sunt ibidem cl acre terre arabilis in domin- ico unde possunt seminari per annum c acre. . . . Et residuum iacebit ad warectam et tunc nihil valet quia in communi." * Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in " campus qui dicitur Estfeld [5] pecie " in " Middilfeld [8] pecie " in " campus qui dicitur Westfeld [13] pecie " in " campus qui dicitur Inglethorpfeld [2] pecie." * Extent of the demesne arable, " de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum . . . et warrecta inde nihil valet per annum quia tunc est communis omnibus ten'entibus." ' Somerset. Two-field Townships Baltonsborough Extent of the demesne, of which 131 acres lie in campo accident ali and 88 acres lie in campo orieniali} • 1634. ' 1685. » 1676. < 1685. < C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 37 (22). 8 Edw. III. » Cott. MS., Nero C VII, f. 150. i Hen. IV. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 46 (31). 10 Edw. III. ' Rent, el Cust. Monast. Glastoniae, Somerset Rec. Soc., IP«6;.1, 1891, V. igs. [l2S2HSl.l APPENDIX II 495 Township Barwick ■ ■ Bath Easton " Berewe " Bratton St. Maur Camel " Rumare " Cameley Charlton Musgrove Coleford Compton Curry Rivell English Combe Description Grant of 7 acres from one-third of a virgate, viz., 3j acres in campo versus orientem and 35 acres in campo versus occidenlem} Grant of a grove and i6| acres of arable, viz., 8i acres in the East field in 4 parcels 7i acres in the West field in 9 parcels.^ Grant. " Be ilia dimidia virgata terre que remanet . . . iacent decern acre in Sudfeld at octo acre in Nordfeld." ' Grant of a messuage and 6o| acres of land in the West field and S9 acres of land in the East field.* Grant of two messuages, two crofts, 25 acres of meadow, and 27 acres in 20 parcels in the North field and 25 acres in 19 parcels in the South field.* Confirmation of a grant of a messuage, 2 acres of meadow, and 6 acres of arable in one field and 6 acres in the other field.* Grant of 3 acres of meadow and 18 acres of arable, viz., 10 acres in 10 parcels in the North field and 8 acres in 7 parcels in the South field.' Grant inler alia of two mills " cum omnibus perti- nentibus suis, scil., " cum sex acris terre iacentibus in campo orientali et sex acris terre iacentibus in campo occiden- taU." » Grant of a messuage, a grove, a meadow, and " quinque acras terre in campo qui dicitur Suthfeld [in 4 parcels] et quinque acras terre in campo qui dicitur Estfeld [in 4 parcels]." ' Grant of a rent of 3 j. paid for 9 acres of arable, viz., in the West field 5 acres and in the East field 4 acres.'" Grant of 4 acres of arable, whereof 2 acres are in the East field and 2 acres are in the West field." ' Fed. Fin., 196-3-23. 3 Hen. III. ! Ckartl. Bath Priory, Somerset Rec. Soc., [Publ], 1893, vii. 82. [1295-1300.) 3 Fed. Fin., 196-2-63. s John. ' Carll. Brutoit Priory, Somerset Rec. Soc., \PuU.], 1894, viii. 22. [Before 1232.] ' Carll. MuchelneyAhbcj,ihii.,iig9,7iv.6&. [1240. 1 8 Cartl. BucUand Priory, ibid., 1909, xxv. 56. 1201. ^ Cartl. Brutan Priory, ibid., 1894, viii. 44. [1256-67.1 8 Fed. Fin., 196-4-89. 18 Hen. HI. > Ibid., 196-3-71. 10 Hen. III. w Cartl. Muchelney Ablfey, Somerset Rec. Soc., [Publ.], xiv. 66. [Early XIII cen.] " Ckartl. Bath Priory, ibid., vii. 165. 15 Edw. III. 496 Township Lovington Lyncombe MeUs Somerton SweU Weston Wookey Hole APPENDIX 11 Description Grant with the advowson of the church of one hide of land, viz., four score acres in one field and four score in the other.' Grant of 2 acres in the lower field and 2 acres in the upper field.^ Extent of the demesne, of which 2ig acres lay in campo orientali and 209I acres lay in campo occidentali? Grant of 8 acres of arable, viz., in the East field 4 acres in 3 parcels and in the West field 4 acres in i parcel.* Grant of one-fourth of a virgate, viz., 7j acres in Babforlang and Crouforlang and 7i acres in the other field in 5 parcels.' Description of a virgate of land, of which 15 acres are in the South field in 7 parcels and 1$ acres in the North field in 8 parcels.' Grant of houses, meadow, and 14 acres of arable land in one field and 13 acres in the other.' Brompton Little Marston " Huredcote " Eton Lyng Sutton Somerset. Three-field Townships Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo occidentali 49 acres sown with wheat in campo boriali 60 acres sown with spring corn in campo orientali 39 acres lying fallow.' Transfer of a half- virgate, which comprises 185 acres, viz., in the East field s| acres in the East [sic] field 7 acres in the South field 6 acres.' Extents of the manors of Athelney abbey. Relative to the demesne arable of each, " due partes pos- sunt seminari per annum. . . et tertia pars iacet in communi et ad warectam et ideo nullius valoris." '" ' Cat. MSS. of Dean and Chapter 0/ Wells (Hist. MSS. Com., 1907), i. 41. »i. d. 2 Chartl. Bath Priory, Someiset Rec. Soc., IPubl.], vii. 77. [1261-91.I > Rent, et Cust. Monast. Glastoniae, ibid., v. 2ig. [1252-61.1 * Cartl.Muchelney Abbey, i\iii.,Ta.v.^. [Before 1282.] " Cartl. Bruton Priory, \\i\A.,vn\. ^o. [1206-23.] « Chartl. Bath Priory, ibid., vii. 77. [Early XIV cen.l ' Cal. MSS. of Dean and Chapter oj Wells, i. 107. 1294. ' Rents. & Survs., Ro. 564. 16 Edw. III. ' Cartl. Muckelney Abbey, Somerset Rec. Soc., [Publ.], xiv. 71. 1241. 1" Add. MS. 606s, ff. 9, 10. 23 Edw. I. APPENDIX II 497 Bromley, Abbots Clayton Griffin Staffordshire. Three-field Townships Township Description Barton An extensive survey arranged by fields and devoting to Wheat field 17 folios, to Walkers field 26, to Rowghemedowe field 4, and to Arloo field 24.1 Bonehill Two terriers describe parcels in three common fields., John Warde, for example, has 22 selions in Marie- pit field, 6 in Uppal field, and 5 in Morowe field.^ The enclosure award allots, in addition to 8i8 acres of waste, 39i acres in Ley field, 40 in Holly well field,, and 17 in Mickledale field. Each of the three fields is surrounded by enclosures.' Extent describing " in campo de Middulhulfeld et le Heygrene quat- uordecim acras terre regales . . . in campo inter villam Novi Castri et villam de Clay- ton undecim acras terre . . . in campo de Fullwallefeld et assarto quondam domini de Clayton quatuordecim acras terre." * Hilderston Transfer of a messuage and a half-virgate, scil., " tres acras et dimidiam que iacent in campo de Holewei . . . et tres acras et dimidiam in campo de Blakedone . . . et tres acras in campo de Whecolnelf eld . . . ." * Leek Transfer of a messuage and 12 acres of demesne arable: in campo occidentali 21 selions in 3 parcels in campo aquilonali 18 selions in 3 parcels in campo orienlali 15 selions in 3 parcels.' The enclosure award and map show three non-adjacent fields, each containing many parcels. The total area re-allotted comprises 52! acres in Whitney field, 28 acres in Newlunt field, and 20J acres in Budbrooke field.' A survey showing three fields, Castelhay, Mill, and Middle, but they are not large and their tenants are few.* TrysuU and Siesdon Tutbury " Berkeswych " Brewood Heywood Draycott, Derbyshire Extents of the manors of the bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. Relative to the arable of each, " de tertia parte nihil potuit levari quia iacebat frisca et inculta et in communibus campis adwarectam."' > D. of Lane, M. B. no. [i Eliz.] ' Land Rev., M. B. 185, f. 66. 21 Eliz. ' C. P. Recov. Ro., 39 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1799. ' Chartt. Priory 0/ Trentham, Wm. Salt Archaeol. Soc., Colls., 1890, xi. 328. 34 Edw. I. ' Fed. Fin., 208-4-47. 21 Hen. III. • Cott. MS., Vesp. E XXVI, f. 46S. [XIV cen. copy.] ' C. P. Recov. Ro., 20 Geo. Ill, Easter. 1780. » D. of Lane, M. B. 109, ff. 35-426. i Eliz. > Add. MS. 616s, ff. 97-104. 31 Edw. III. 498 APPENDIX II Township Bradley Essington Madeley Mere End Norbury Swinnerton Description Extent of the demesne arable, of which " tertia pars iacet quoUbet anno ad warectam et in communi." ' Two and one-half virgates are valued at only half a mark because the soil is sandy, and " tertia pars eiusdem terre quolibet anno iacet ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent. " Sunt ibidem ciiii'''' acre terre arabilis de quibus cxx seminantur quolibet anno ... et Ix acre nihil valent per annum quia iacent quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent of a carucate of arable, of which " tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi." * Extent of a carucate of arable, of which " tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent of three carucates of arable, of which " tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in com- muni." * Amberley Broadwater Sussex. Two-field Townships Extent of 176 acres of demesne arable, of which 53 are sown with wheat, 24 with barley, 10 with beans, peas, and vetches, 5 with oats. " Et valet acra per annum si debet dimitti ad firmam iiii d. et non plus quia iacent in communi ... " ' The enclosure plan shows, apart from many old en- closures, two open common fields called North and South." Alciston Angmering Atherington Eartham 1 C. Inq, p. Mort. Edw. in. 2 Ibid., F. 61 (18). ' Ibid., F. SI (7). < Ibid., F. 54 (9). ' Ibid., F. 66 (25). « Ibid., F. 54 (8). Sussex. Three-field Townships Terrier of the manor showing the parcels of the holdings divided between WestlejTie, Middleleyne, and Eastlejme.' The enclosure plan shows three compact open arable fields named West, Middle, and East.'" A reproduction of the plan of 1606 shows one- third of the manor still in three open fields named West, Mead, and Mill." The enclosure award and plan show six large open arable fields with areas as follows: North field 80 Edw. Ill, F. SI (7). II 14 Edw. III. 11 Edw. III. 12 Edw. III. 16 Edw. III. 12 Edw. III. ' Add. MS. 616s, f. 109J. 11 Rich. II. ' C. P. Recov. Ro., si Geo. Ill, Hil. 1810. » Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. s6, B. 246-248. 11 Hen. VI. ■" C. P. Recov. Ro., 52 Geo. Ill, Trin. 1S09. " Sussex Archaeol. Colls., igoi, xliv. 147. 1606. APPENDIX II 499 Township Eartham {contimied) Nutboume Ovingdean Prinsted Worthing Heighton Rackham Description acres, Middle field 93, Church field 92, Hodge Lee field 82, Mill field 102, Boar's Hill field 46.1 The enclosure plan shows three common fields called Weston, Mill Pond, and Hat Coppice.* Terrier of the lands of the prior of Lewes, who has this year arable to be sown " in qualibet leyna, viz., in le Northleyne cum frumento . . . xxv acras in le Sowthleyne cum ordeo . . . xxxi acras . . . be Estoune terra frista . . . xxix acras ..." and in four other places 8 acres.' A complete and detailed terrier of the township. The open-field arable of each tenant is divided equally among three groups of fields, viz.: Eastope, the Steane, and Langlands (" this Laine") ; Moggland fields; Southerdeane and Plumer (" this Laine ").* The enclosure plan shows three large open-field areas. East field, Home and Middle fields, and West field.' Extent of 60 acres of demesne arable, "de quibus semi- nabantur hoc anno . . . xl acre et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent of 160 acres of demesne arable, of which 5° are sown with wheat, 20 with barley, 16 with oats, 20 with peas and vetches. " Et valet acra per annum iiii d. et non plus quia iacent in communi." ' Chapel Ascote Church Over Compton Eatington Warwickshire. Two-riELD Townships Grant of 6 acres in the field, of which " tres sunt in parte [defaced] . . . campi et tres alie in ilia parte campi qui est inter Astanes- cote et hodenhulle. ..." * Transfer of demesne arable " in uno campo . . . et in alio campo, scil., in aquilonali parte [52 acres in 10 parcels] in australi vero campo [44 acres in 8 parcels]." ' Transfer of 2 messuages, with 28 acres of arable in campo aquilonali and 26 in campo australi}" Transfer of a croft, with a " culturam. . . in uno campo . . . et culturam ... in alio campo." " 1817. ■ C. P. Recov. Ro., 57 Geo. Ill, Trin. 2 K. B. Plea Ro., 3-4 Geo. IV, Hil. 1818. " Cott. MS., Vesp. F XV. 23 Hen. VI. ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. 3/57- 1640- 5 C. P. Recov. Ro., 51 Geo. Ill, Hil. 1810. « C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 56 (i). 12 Edw. III. ' Add. MS. 6165, £. no. 11 Rich. II. 8 Cott. MS., Vitel. D XVIII, f. 71 IXIII cen.] » Cott. MS., Vitel. A I, f. 112 [XIII cen.l '» Ped. Fin., 242-5-28. 4 John. " Harl. MS. 4028. [31-44 Hen. III.) 500 APPENDIX II Township Harbuiy Hodnel Kenilworth Ladbroke Long Lawford Radburn Tysoe Westcote Description Transfer of a messuage and a half-virgate, scil., in campo versus Warewich 4 acres in 12 parcels in campo versus [La]dbr[oke] 3I acres in 9 parcels.' Transfer of 4 acres in uno campo in 8 parcels and 4 acres in alio campo in 8 parcels.' Transfer of a toft and 9I acres of arable, viz., 5 J acres in various furlongs in 18 parcels and 41 acres in alio campo similarly subdivided.' Transfer of 15 acres of demesne arable, viz., 7j in una parte campi in 3 parcels 7J in altera parte campi in 3 parcels.* Retention from a virgate of 4 acres, scil., " duas in uno campo et duas in alio." Retention from a virgate of 4 acres, scU., " duas in una parte campi et duas in altera." * Transfer of 1 7 acres of arable, scil., 85 in uno campo et 81 in altera. Several other charters make a similar division.' Transfer of two virgates of demesne, each formerly held by a tenant who had " unam dimidiam virgatam in uno campo et unam dimidiam virgatam in alio campo." ' Transfer of " sex acras in campo versus Tysho et sex in campo versus Radeweye." ' Warwickshire. Theee-field Townships Binley Transfer of 9 selions of arable in campo occidentali in S places 1 7 selions of arable in campo australi in 3 places and 1 7 selions of arable in campo aquilonali in 4 places.' Long Lawford Grant of 49 acres of arable, viz., in orientali campo igj acres in 19 parcels in campo occidentali 15 acres in 15 parcels in campo meridiano 14! acres in lo parcels." The enclosure award and plan show six fields approxi- mately equal and named Wind Mill Hill, Heeth, Cross of the Hand, Northalls, Carr, and Pinwell.'' A rental stating that the virgate, the half-virgate, and the quarter-virgate of three tenants lie " in tribus campis." " Weston under Wetherley Willenhall 1 Cott. MS., Vitel. D XVIII, f. 8ii. [XIII cen.] 2 Ibid., f. 74. pan cen.l " Stone MS. 937, £. 106S. [XIII cen.) ' Cott. MS., Vitel. A I, f. 135. [XV cen. copy.] s Cott. MS., CaUg. A XIII, ff. 135*, 149. [XIII cen.] • Cott. MS., Vitel. A I, £. 1 23J. [XV cen. copy.] ' Cott. MS., Vesp. E XXIV, f. 36. [Edw. I.] 8 Ped. Fin., 242-6-60. 4 John. » Cott. MS., Vitel. A I, f. 466. [XV cen. copy.) i» Cott. MS., Calig. A XIII, £. 1366. [XIV cen.] " C. P. Recov. Ro., 20 Geo. Ill, Easter. 1780. '2 Lansdowne MS. 400, S. 41, 416. 12 Hen. IV. APPENDIX II SOI Tmimship Axford Badbury Damerham, South Grittleton Kington Nettleton Winterboume Berwick [St. James] Harden Overton, West Sherston Stanton [St. Quenton] SwallowcUfE Warminster Winterbourne Yatesbury Wiltshire. Two-field Townships Description Survey of the township showing the tenants' arable divided between North field and South field.' Surveys of Glastonbury manors (cf. Appendix I). In each case the holdings of the customary tenants are divided between two fields, named respectively East and West, East and West, North and West, East and West, North and South, East and West.2 Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo versus Austrum 99 acres and in campo Boriali 96 acres.' Transfer of demesne arable, scil., " in campo orientaU viginti acre et in campo occidental! viginti acre." * Survey of the township, showing tenants' arable divided between South field and West field.' Transfer of a virgate, scil., 21 acres in uno campo and 21 in alio campo.^ Survey of the township, showing the tenants' arable divided between North field and South field, though a small East field also appears.' Confirmation to the church of 6 acres " in utroque campo." ' Grant of a half-virgate, the arable of which comprises " septem acras in campo inter Wermenstre et Bis- sopestre et septem acras in campo inter Upton et Wer- menstre." ' Transfer of 80 acres in una parte ville and 82 acres in altera parte ville.'-'' Transfer of 70 acres of arable, except a croft and "ex- ceptis XV acris terre in uno campo et in alio campo xi acris terre. . . . " " 1 C. R. Straton, Pembroke Lands, i. 163-167. gEliz. 2 Hart. MS. 3g6i. 10 Hen. VIII. 3 Inq. p. Mort., quoted by R. C. Hoare, Modern Wiltshire, ii. 25. 42 Hen. III. * Ped. Fin., 250-2-7. 3 John. 6 Straton, Pembroke Lands, i. 143-145. 9 Eliz. ' Reg. Malmesburiense (Rolls Series), ii. 26. [1205-22.] ' Straton, Pembroke Lands, i. 132-136. 9 Eliz. 8 Reg. Sarisberiense (Rolls Series), i. 342. [XIII cen. copy.] ' Ped. Fin., 250-4-1. 2 Hen. III. i» Anc. Deeds, A 244. [XIII cen.] " Ped. Fin., 250-3-16. 7 John. 502 APPEXDIX II WiLTSHiBE. Two-field Townships — Coni. Township Brokenborough I Xevmton >■ Cowfold with Xorton J Heytesbuiy, East Heytesbury, Great Coleme Hurdcott Haddington Sherston Descrifiti: t Extents of the estates of Malmesbun" abbey. Of the demesne arable in each case " medietas potest quolibet anno seminari . . . et alia medietas nihil valet quia iacet in communi et ad warectam." ' Extent. " Sunt ibidem cccdx acre terre aiabilis de quibus possunt seminari per anm im cdx . . . et quum non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi.'' ^ Eirtent. " Simt in dominico cccc acre terre arabilis . . . et quum non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi de quibus possunt seminari cc acre." ' Extent of loo acres of demesne arable, the phraseology being the same as the preceding.* Extent. " Sunt in dominico dx acre terre arabilis de quibus possunt seminari per anniiin iiii^^^ . . . et quum non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi." * Extent of loo acres of arable, "de quibus possunt semi- nari per annum 1 acre et quiun non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi.' Extent. " Sunt ibidem in dominico Dc acre terre ara- bilis de quibus possunt seminari per annum ccc acre . . . et quando iacent ad warectam nihil valent quia iacent in communi." ' Aldboume Manors of the Earl of Pembroke, for the most part near Wilton Wiltshire. Three-fieid Townships The enclosure award and plan show ax open arable fields named South, ^Vindmill, Rooksbury, West, Xorth, and East.' Sunej"s of townships showing the arable of the tenants' holdings divided among three fields, as follows: Alvediston, South, Middle, and Home fields; " Area," South, Middle, and North fields; Broad Chalke, East, Middle, and West fields; Burcombe, East, West, and Wood fields; ChilhampUm, Xorth, West, and South fields; Dicliampton, Xorth, Middle, and South fields; Dinton, West, Middle, and East fields; East Overton, Xorth, East, and South fields; Fuggleston, East, West, and Xorth fields; .Vfu/an Toney, Woodbuighe, Bush, and ' .\dA MS. 6i6s, fi. S7-S9. 19 Rich. H. » C Inq. p. Mort., Edw. m, F. 56 (i). Edw. m. ' Ibid., F, 63 (ij). u F^w. m. < Ibid. ' Ibid., F. 56 (i). 12 Edw. in. • Ibid., F. 62 (6). 14 Edw. m. ' Ibid., F. 6s (3). 15 Edw. m. » C P. Recov. Ro., S3 G«o. HI, Trin. 1809. APPENDIX II 503 Tovmskifi Manors of the Earle of Pembroke (continued) Steeple Ashton and tith- ings, Hinton, South- wick, Senungton, North Ashton, North Braxlley Bremhill and Foxham Charlton CrudweU " Kemde " Purton Sutton Castle Combe Duirington Shamcott Description Hoome fields; North Ugford, North, Middle, and West fields; QuidhampUm, East, Middle, and West fields; Soulh Newton, South, Middle, and NortJi fields; Sloford, East, Middle, and West fields (plan in ii. 542); Washerne, East, Middle, and West fields; Wylye, East, Middle, and West fields.' Brief survey, often showing that the townships lay in three common arable fidds.' Extents of the manors of MaJmesbmy abbey. Of the demesne arable in each instance " due partes pos- sunt quolibet anno seminari . . . et tertia pars nihil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in communi." ' Extent of " due carucate terre axabilis quarum . . . tertia pars per annum nihil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in commimi." * Extent of the demesne arable, "quarum due partes pos- simt seminari per annum . . . et tertia pars quum non seminatur nihil valet quia iacet in com- muni." ' Extent of the demesne arable, " de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum . . . Et tertia pars que non seminatur nihil valet quia iacet in coromuni." * WORCESTEKSHIILE. TwO-HELD TOWNSHIPS Broadway Transfer of a messuage and 25 acres of arable in una campo and 2I in alio campo.'' Hampton Transfer of a messuage and 30 acres in the fields, " quarum ™n iacent in uno campo et xvi in alio." * Hill Grant of 6 acres of arable from half a virgate, sdL, in uno campo 3 acres in 5 parcels in alio campo 3 acres in 5 parcels.' Walcot Transfer of a half-virgate in duobus campis, sdL, in campo iuxta EUesbergam 13 acres in 13 parcels in alio campo 13 acres in 10 parcels."" I Straton, Pembroke ' Land Rev., M. B. ' Add. MS. 6i6s, ff. • Add. MS. 28206. ' C. Inq. p. Mort, Edw. in. • Ibid-, F. 39 (6)- Lands, voL L g Eliz. 191, S. 145-15*. 57-59- 19 ^xb. n. 46 Edw. m. Edw. m, F. 40 (10). SEdw. m. ' Eich. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f. 15J. [XrV cen. copy.) > Cott. MS., Vesp. B XXIV, f. 5. POH cen.] • Fed. Fin., 258-3-47. 11 Hen. IQ. » Eich. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f. 936. pav cen. copy.] S04 APPENDIX II Township Huddington Shumock Manors of the bishop of Worcester, viz., North Wick, Wick Episcopi, Kempsey, Ripple, Bre- don, Fladbury, Block- ley, Tredington, Ham- bury, Alvechurch, As- ton Episcopi, Knight- wick. Worcestershire. Three-field Townships Description At the end of a survey are described three small, non- adjacent arable common fields, viz., Shatherlong field containing 36 acres, Badney or Windmill field containing 20 acres, and Hill field containing 30 acres.i Transfer of a half-virgate of arable, scil., " illam medie- tatem que ubique iacet in campis de Suthecot, Hul- feld, et Denefeld versus umbram." ^ Extents valuing two-thirds of the demesne arable in each instance, but stating that " tertia pars nihil [valet] quia ad warectam et in communi." * YoRXSHiRE. Two-field Townships Ainderby Castley Coniston Kilnsey Marton 'Item Memorandum of the lands of Malton priory, in Aymunderby in campo occidentali iii bovate in campo oriental! viii bovate." * " Thabbot of Fontaunce hath in ye felde of Castdey xii acres of land of the which " 3 acres he in the South field in 4 parcels and 8 acres he in the North field in 11 parcels.' Transfer of 15J acres, viz., in campo de Conyngston versus le North loj acres in S places in campo versus le Suth $\ acres in one place.' Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo orientali 102 acres and in campo occidentali 11 if acres.' Transfer of 40 acres of arable, "viginti, scilicet, ex ima parte ville et viginti ex aha." Transfer of " iiii acre ex una parte ville versus boream in Fourtenerode et quatuor ex ilia parte versus meridiem [in 3 par- cels]." ' ' Exch. Aug. Of., Pari. Survs., Worcs. 6. 1650. ' Fed. Fin., 258-5-3. 21 Hen. III. ' Add. MS. 6165, ff. 81-83. 38 Edw. III. < Cott. MS., Claud. D XI, f. 279. [XIV cen. copy.] » Add. MS. 18276, f. 366. 1468. ' Ibid., f. 39. 1509. ' Rente. & Survs., Portf. 17/4. Edw. III. ' Cartl. Prior. de Gyseburne (Surtees Soc, 1891), ii. 9. [Early XHI cen.] APPENDIX II SOS Township Marton Owthom Richmond Skeckling Thoralby Walkington Ganstead Humnanby Description Transfer of a toft and 20 acres of arable, soil., " decern ex una parte ville et ex alia parte ville decern. . . ." ' Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo ex parte boriali dicte ville 61 J acres in campo versus austrum 95 acres, 10 perches.' Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo occidenUdi per 167 J acres in campo orienlali per 145! acres.' Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo orienlali 6^\ acres in campo occidentali ■jo\ acres in duabus cultiiris de forland qtwd dicitur Gildcrosse- wages lof acres.* Transfer of 40 acres of arable, viz., 36 in septentrionali parte ville and 4 in australi.^ One holding of two oxgangs comprises IS acres of arable in the South field and 15 acres of arable in the North field.' Extent of the demesne arable, " de quibus medietas quolibet anno iacet in warecto et in communi." ' Extent of the demesne arable. " Et qualibet bo- vata continet xvi acre terre unde possunt seminari quoUbet anno . . . viii acre . . . et residuum quod iacet in warecto mhil valet per annum pro eo quod iacet in communi." ' Yorkshire. Theee-pield Townships Austerfield Terriers of five leaseholds which, apart from small en- closures, divide their arable almost equally between West field, Riddinge field, and Lowe field (e.g., 6f, 7, 6 J acres).' Sainton A survey in which the holdings, apart from the mes- suages and small closes, are described as " arrable in the 3 feilds." '» Baldersby " Mensuratio campi de Balderby. Summa ncxxvi acre.'' The rubrics in the margin (perhaps of the fifteenth century) are Campus borialis, Stith Cam- pus, and West Campus; but the South field is not > Egerton MS. 2823. [XV cen. copy.] 2 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 17/4. Edw. III. ■ Ibid. ' Ibid. ' Cott. MS., Claud. D XI, f. 184*. [XIV cen. copy.) s Land Rev., M. B. 229, f. 192. 1608. ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 40 (7). Edw. III. 8 Ibid., F. 44 (i)- 9 Edw. III. » Land Rev., M. B. 229, ff. 180-185. 1608. i» Ibid., fi. 159-162. 1608. So6 APPENDIX II Township Baldersby {continued) Barwick [in Elmet] Burstwick Catterton Darrington Deighton, North Frickley Houghton cum Castle- forth Hutton, Sheriff Kippax Description great in extent, and in all three fields certain " flats " are sown with rye.' Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises 40 acres in campo orientali 48 in campo occidentali 50 in campo boriali and 4 in Scolesker.' Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises 1 30 J acres in East field 1 161 in Middle field and 157I in West field.' Terriers of three farmholds each divided among three fields. The second comprises in North field 15 j acres in 6 places in the Tofte field 13! acres in 9 places in Gosbar' field 10 acres in 5 places.* Grant of 21 acres from a bovate : i acre in a croft, and " i acram in cultura de Nortfeld et dimidiam acram in cultiura de Sudfeld et dimidiam acram in cultura de Westfeld." ' Transfer of 2 acres, scil., i acre in North field and i in campo occidentali, with a cultura in campo orientali. At the end of the cartulary is a sixteenth-century terrier of the demesne arable, assigning to West field I if acres, to South field ii| acres, to Ho- berkes 7! acres, to North field 2 acres, and to Oxendosse 8 acres.* Terrier of 3 messuages, 2 crofts, 3 doles of meadow, 6 acres of enclosed arable, and in the Mylne field 10 acres in 9 parcels in the Clough field 7 J acres in 1 2 parcels in the Kyrke field 7 acres in 9 parcels.' A survey showing the arable acres of the tenants' hold- ings pretty evenly divided among Kirk field, High (or Meare) field, and Park (or West) field, (e.g., 30, 40, 40; s, 5, 6; 16, 16, 20, etc.).» A survey showing the arable acres of the tenants' hold- ings equally divided among Dudhill field, Dyce- gate and Reddinge, and West field (e.g., 12, 12, 12).' Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises 23 acres in the South field, 22 in the North field, and 22 in the West field.'" 1 Cott. MS., Tib. C XII, £. 193. 1296. 2 Exch. Treas. Recpt,, M. B. 176. is Edw. III. » Rents. & Survs., Portf. 17/4. Edw. III. < Cott. MS., Vesp. A IV, f. 188. [XVI cen.) 5 Pedes Pinium Ebor. reg. Johanne (SurteesSoc., 1894), p. 136. 1208. • Cott. MS., Vesp. A IV, 5. 63, 190. [1285.! ' Rents. & Survs., Portf. 22/41. 5 Hen. VI. « Land Rev., M. B. 229, S. 27-38. 1608. » Land Rev., M. B. 193, f. 47*. s Jas. I. '» Exch. Treas. Recpt., M. B. 176. 15 Edw. III. APPENDIX II 507 Township Kirby Grindalyth Kirkby-Wiske Lund Monkhill Norton Nun Monketon Pickering Rokeby and Smythorp Skirpenbeck Sneaton Description Map showing three large fields, viz., East field con- taining 277 acres. Middle field containing 316 acres, and West field with Garth End field containing 418 acres (265 + 153).' Transfer of 4 selions in campo borientali in 3 parcels 4 selions in campo occidentali in 3 parcels 3 selions in campo australi in 3 parcels.^ Several leaseholds consist largely of arable, which is said to lie " in ye three fields." ' A tenant's holding consists of a messuage, a close of 5 acre, 2 acres of meadow in the town " Ings," and 6 acres of arable in Kirk field, 7 in Middle field, and 7 in North field.* A valuation of the demesne arable, which is rubricated as follows: in Chapelcroft, East field, and Middle field gSj acres in South field in 8 flats, 98 acres in West field in 17 flats, 92I acres.' " To the towne are belongynge thre fieldes . . . the towne fielde . . . the middel fielde . . . the west fielde." « " On each side of the brook lay a suite of common fields, three in number; . . . each bovate on one side of the township contained 24 acres, on the other 12 acres." ' Exchange of 66 acres of arable, " que iacent in tribus campis de Rokeby et Smythorp," viz., in Blacker field and Langland field 22 j acres in Eskelflat field and Thomholm field 22i acres in More field and Tresholm field 22^ acres.' Of the 14 bovates which belong to Whitby abbey 6 are consolidated, but 8 lie " in flattes in campo dicte ville quarum prima iacet in Northfeld super Wolfhow que continet xxii acras terre . . . in campo australi a flatt vocata Blaland flatt que continet xvi acras terre et dimidiam . . . in campo occidentali ... a flatt vocata Okflat . . . que continet ii acras terre." ' Transfer of 21 acres of arable, viz., in West field 95 acres in 6 places 1 Add. MS. 36899 A. 1755. 2 Add. MS. 18276. f. ios». 1266. ' Land Rev., M. B. 229, S. 163-164. ' Ibid., f. 44. (1608.] 5 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 753- Edw. I. • Add. MS. 4781. [Hen. VIII.] ' William Marshall, Rural Economy of Yorkshire (2 vols., London, 1788), i. 50. c. 1788. 8 Bodl., Rawl. B 449, f. 84. [c. 1269.I • Cartl. Abbat. de Whitby (Surtees Soc., 1878), i. 328. 1446. 5o8 APPENDIX II Township Sneaton {continued) Studley Tibthorpe Waghen Wetwang Whixley WighiU Wombwell Boynton Kirkby Malzeard Description in Middle field 6| acres in 6 places super Heydun 5! acres.' Terriers of two holdings. The first consists of a mes- suage, a toft, and a croft of 3 acres, with 8 acres in 10 parcels in the South field 2\ acres in 4 parcels in Miln field 7j acres in 11 parcels in North field 2 1 acres in 4 parcels in West field. The second tenement consists of a messuage, a toft, and a croft of 2 acres, with 4J acres in South field, if in Miln field, and 3I in North field.^ A survey in which several tenants have their arable " in the three fields." ' Transfer of three bovates, scil., in orientali campo 10 selions in 6 parcels in campo auslrali 18 selions in 6 parcels in campo aquilonqli 9 selions in 6 parcek.* A survey in which the lessee of the demesne and one other tenant have their arable " in the three fields." ' Transfer of 6 acres " quarum quedam pars iacet in Westfeld . . . et quedam pars in Estfeld . . . et tertia pars in Midelfeld. . . ." * A terrier of the arable belonging to the prior of Helaugh Park, which comprised in North field 23J acres in West field 30J acres in East field 23! acres.' A terrier of the arable belonging to the prior of Helaugh Park, viz., in campo boriali 4 J acres and 2 " pecie " in 9 parcels in campo occidentali 9I acres in 13 parcels in campo auslrali 43 j acres in 71 parcels.' Extent of the demesne arable, of which ''quelibet bovata continet xiii acras et de qualibet bovata terre pos- sunt seminari per annum ix acras pro utraque semente equaliter . . . et residuum quod iacet in warecto nihil valet per annum pro eo quod iacet in communi." ' Extent. " Sunt ibidem xx acre terre que possunt semi- nari cum semine hiemali . . . sunt xx acre terre que 1 Cott. MS., Claud. D XI, f. 1336. [XIV cen. copy.] 2 Add. MS. 18276, f. 216. 21 Hen. VII. » Land Rev., M. B. 229, ff. 155-158. 1608. > Cott. MS., Otho C VIII, f. 86. [XV cen. copy.) 6 Land Rev., M. B. 229, fif. 145-146. 1608. » Add. MS. 18276. c. 1255. ' Cott. MS., Vesp. A IV, £. igid. [XVI cen.] » Cott. MS., Vesp. A, I. 184. [Hen. VII.] > C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 2 (7). i Edw. III. APPENDIX II 509 Township KirkbyMalzeard {continued) Scamston Thorganby Thorp Arch Upleatham Sherboum Everingham Walton Description possunt seminari cum semine estivali . . . sunt xx acre terre in warecto quarum herbagiura nichil valet per annum quia iacent in communi." ' Extent of the demesne arable, " de quibus tertia pars quolibet anno iacet in warecto et pastura in eodem warecto nihil valet per aimum quia iacet in com- muni cum tenentibus ville." ^ Extent of " una bovata . . . de qua quidem bovata terre tertia pars iacet quolibet anno in warecto et pastura in warecto nichil valet per annum quia iacet in communi." ' Extent of the demesne arable, " de quibus due partes seminabantur . . . et tertia pars earundem quoli- bet anno iacet in warecto et pastura nichil valet quia iacet in communi." * Extent of the demesne arable, " de quibus duo partes possunt quoUbet anno seminari cum utroque semine et tertia pars iacet quolibet anno in warecto et pastura inde nichil valet quia iacet in com- muni." ' Extent, with phraseology as above.* Extent, with phraseology as above.' Extent of the demesne araUe, " de quibus tertia pars quolibet anno iacet in warecto et pastura eiusdem nichil valet per annum quia iacet in communi." ' ' C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 5 (s). I Edw. III. 2 Ibid., F. 44 (6). 9 Edw. III. » Ibid., F. 38 (10). 8 Edw. III. • Ibid., F. S9 (is). 13 Edw. III. s Ibid., F. 63 (i). 14 Edw. III. • Ibid., F. 6s (8). IS Edw. III. ' Ibid. 9 Ibid., F. 39 (10). 8 Edw. III. Sio APPENDIX in APPENDIX III SUMMARIES OF TUDOR AND JACOBEAN SURVEYS WHICH ILLUSTRATE IRREGULAR FIELDS WITHIN THE AREA OF THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM Areas are in acres unless otherwise specified. Messuages are indicated by m., virgates by virg., tenements by tent., cottages by cott. Stonesmeld, Oxfordshire Land Rev., M. B. 224, £f. 162-180. 4 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields Church Custumarii Enclosed field John Kerke, m., j virg 2 J Wm. Hedges, m., 5 virg. . . . i § Wm. Hedges, cott., i virg. . ij 2J Rich. Nashe, m., J virg if i Geo. Owen, gent., m., } virg. f | Wm. Larder, m., f virg i Ric. Keeth, cott \ Wm. Hicks, m., § virg if i Thos. Sayward, m., | virg. . | 4! Robt. Jeames, m., li virg. . . i| if Liberi Tenentes Jac. Lardner, m \ 2 Rich. Dewe, m 2i. 4 Wm. Dutton, m \ Rich. Meede, m i There are several other copyholders and freeholders, of pasture for sheep in the common fields and meadows. Callowe Home field 12 9^ 2i III "^ 13 li 23 12 22 Gennetts Sarte The customary tenants have stinted common WooTTON, Oxfordshire Land Rev., M. B. 224, £f. 181-206. 4 Jas. I Enclosed Custumarii Arab. Past. Jo. Gregory, m., 3 virg 2 3 Jo. Gregory, m., 2 virg i J Egidius Sowthram, m., 2 virg i i\ Robt. Parram, m., 2 virg i^ 21 Chris. Castell, 2 m., i virg 2j 3 Wm. Home, Jr., m J \ Jo. Symonds, m \ There are three other copyholds and several freeholds, common of pasture, but no locality is mentioned. Arable in the Open Common Fields North field or end West field or end Common Meadow 70 I 40 \ SO 2i 70 2j 40 30 i Two customaiy tenants are said to have APPENDIX III Sii Long Coombe, Oxfordshire Land Rev., M. B. 224, ff. 58-94. 4 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields Enclosed ^Vest Land East Common Custumarii Arab. Md. Past. field field end Meadow- Joanna Woodward, m., J virg. f . . i§ .. 9 .. i^ Edm. Haukings, m., J virg. .53.. s • • • • 3i Jo. Newman, m., i virg 2 2J li f .. 8 2i Sara Payne, m., i virg h ■ ■ 4i 10 4 ■ • 4* Wm. Bolton, m., J virg ^..8 4 .. 9 3 Rich. Swift, m., j virg J 2 . . i j 6 . . i§ Jo. Hurst, I virg . . 2 . . 2 4 . . si Wm. Seacolle, 4 m., 2 virg. . io| 20 . . 2 . . 13 loj Robt. Newman, m., J virg. . J . . 2 2 6 . . ij Wm. Bowden 2 m., i virg. . | . . 25 . . . . 12 2J Jo. Maye, m., i virg i ■ ■ i 9 . . ■ . I3 There are several other holdings. The free tenants have open-field arable in Over field. The cus- tomary tenants have common of pasture " in campis " (f. 81), stinted for sheep. Ramsden, Oxfordshire Land Rev., M. B. 189. 6 Edw. VI Arable in the Open Common Fields ' Olde Code Swinepit Shurt- Herwell Custumarii Enclosed field field field lake Serte Lucerte Jo. Lardener, m 235 24 9J Wm. Cottes, m., 2 virg 3 23 13 2 3^ 3 6 Elizeas Kyrbey, m., 2 virg. . 3 43 12 8 . . 3 Robt. Camden 23 18J .. 8 i Wm. Lee, m 2J 9J 5J i J i Jo. Lardner, cott . . . . 2 SI2 APPENDIX III o o S g W M N fO CO . « H - W ^ to NNNCPO^W .cO'^'Oioior^'^ 1 r T3 00- 1 1 pq "§ '"§ Q « c* « t3 t3 TJ e a e » a a = " =* HO n|< -IT. .a c*^ • •* •* -^ CO PO ■* ysvop^-'j-'* -■^fO'^-t • .^ iw ^ H'« ixin H-« . tin n '5 " 3 «- a u o a 5 •« 1-^ " a Ma-? E H M s f^ ;^ (^ Ef (h H "^ ■3 S ST G B B (U n a a a s:-s O [I, Ti _Q ^ '+^ _« ja a jq p a s • to tn wi o o a en CO ^3 o .a S S APPENDIX III SI3 as 6S 00" S a h-) IS " On VI • f^ Pi 1 t) _ia) _ ' w> S ^ o •g ri « S I oT 'C *C 'C . tn 10 tn 'O CO n cd ca ja -a XI « o o o 3 g cd bo 4> be W ff? -rt Ah tu o Pi! f4 W W Ah ^ en en O O H H W ,1 •a . o SH APPENDIX III ■a M CO « vo w ^ JU fOOOt^M POt^fOW dTS -* fO O w ■^ PO O ^ PO CO N t*^ « Tt \0 vo eo -"t 1 ^ ■3 12; M »» S « a ^ H^ <- '-, "5) rO X s I 2? n -3 S -o O 00 « -+ Tj- « B2 -g. ^O « 00 »o ^3 So- . en ■s T3 . ■ P! c a . • c3 a nj O W fO M M a B M a o o ., tn flj §-3 I ^ O < p< Si6 APPENDIX III o ►J O gs (SS I S3 t^ 00 >0 -O CO o *-• w o •a S-gvo »>o« no -K ■D S ^■^ \0 00 ^ ^^ ^ O ri n W K H w .2 1. U tM -* > W > . a .a H-s ro ^ lO ^ O ■* t^ 00 O c*3 lo O r^ 00 o fo "^ vo W5 lO O -3 H M H g 3 t^ 00 O ro 1/3 VO n t-iH* eBh# Hm H'* ■3 e .IS S r S S S cS ^ w APPENDIX III S17 3 « "^ >^l tj .32 «». H 2 ^ cT Qi CL ti Of In ^ ft J2 U Ph « HI b "- i M s ■a O "l o S w> _. ^ "S 2 - & *J H O . o JS « ^ s .a en 0, o 00 c^ c*3 F*|N -Hfr* S 5 o Hi o a" s g o H S! i-i u s ■s •s s E? is m a a . « c* 00 r^ -co vo 10 00 fo a E a a be '> > a 1 g Si g-e .2" 1 (S w "^^ ^ 11 H P^ H s 3 (A O •> a? a': 5 ^ c 3 d M 3 s 3 o 12 Si8 APPENDIX III ft § B a low ts.^« ^t>.tH « VO O vo M *< lO lO to lO V) . CO N CO w 00 P^ o^ P^ W MHMHH M MCOW ■Sa N t ■* • „-a s s" § 'hh r> Ph M o o 1— 1 1— > a "V : £f • ■? •? a - s a 3 sT B S o M 5^, IS g u ;^ 3 I a^ - r bo a s-g Igriap ^^ en [fl O O 60 ti a « fe a a o tj gg APPENDIX III SI9 11 as ■ . H fO t3S s a h — ^ ^ en fe d n cn u 41 I j2 .a U & o O hi t^ IH|« 1 u ta >» _. w . >, s 1 uletfi lywari morle morle s ^ -g T3 Pi ^ < < 2 > — V — ' "v « u -NlW ^ t^ • 2 I 2 0\ 00 O 0^ -* l^ CO O ^ u 2 lo .25 i-< eO O O M C4 M IN \0 CO o o i^ ■> ■> ^"2 3 -=! M « W c 3 u be S d c5 I I §«o H ^ H S S § s I iti ■3 JJ (A o o i-i O lz~ o « O M 21 c3 c 2" M 3 . 4> : ya .S w • -a : + W 73 -1=, J .a a 6 ■" XI > ti > H Ef. P " B 0 a o E 3 o oo" 2 I 2" ^ -S '^ ' \ o _^ 0^ M ^^ T3 "TJ "O" 13 'oS -T^ ta «i ^ =1 g u ■3 '^ ^ a ^ J3 « o O 01 ^ ^ .S o ^ <" U en bO m ^ 2 O <-> C, ^ M ■a 2 2 ^ S ^ S ,-, -3 - Q y=i " S •a ii a ° H W « ° U ^^ ^4J XI ^o-'-S o T3 2 ■" .^■HS ^ 2 ■_ry=i "^ 3 ■3 -S "^ ■" ya S 2 e 3 ,2 fe '^ ji 3 2 §1 S ^ "%" SZ •2 T3 - 3 ^ ed ya p^ to u (U ^ 3 ■« a O H ^ , 3 „ H« j3 lis „- 2 " o - t3 la 3 » cs a T: !J "~ 3 s?'^ « _3 •S ^ S 2 H, «l^ I ■o -s 2 ' ya t3 2 ■^ § 1 tS ^ o ^ H|N H|M rH|e» Ml-* "^ irj-'^co'OOvfO cowco S is 3 M 5-3 ■ B S S *? 'f a K T3 -a s 8 8 a & & bC SO si. ft " 9. jT — 2 ■-3 -S Ah ^ ■a ;^ a 522 APPENDIX III M > 9 O - --I* as " • ■ M c3S IN ES ^ O X! s -s cfl tp H ! 1) ! !^ . TJ . ^ ;S : ? a ^ XI "^ 2 TS -O : « .a a s S ffi s tfl h" 1 "i pq M I Oh) 3 S H >0 VM *^ Oi c» *0 1 « oi Pi "ON-* « lO 00 M % o 1 ■^j- \0 vO O ^ t^ O* 00 CO •a PSl-* Ml-* ?r a o ^ •a ^ ►^ H m m O O j:3 ^ H H 'H f^ £ •s rn t1 *J Si *H Ui ^ HH -fi bo's IS -o li 0) v u bo bO o 0< P< ^ a w (U *« IH M o rt •?> O m M H A (§ 524 APPENDIX III S*^ Hln F^« ^^JN hJn «|-# Ffl« i-flw as M H as o en 3 »o en "O O Q C4 M M • CO N M M CO fO « (2 §■ « -3 1 a '' H r^ « w t>. W tH 0\ lO a N -ST J a a s a a s" o- ca " a o s o >% Fa *i g ^ "^ ^ g S 3 2 .. •'I :| o S ■2 S S e be tn "O s a '^ a ^ V •9 --^ o o .o ,o a 1^- is ^ APPENDIX III 525 cSS M -S >4Ma nl^ ■^ -s CO ral-* .s Pij IS ^ M VO Hj. a 1 s S B I c: •o ^ ■32 1 ■Si-ja 1 -S^l r/1 .11^ Pi Jig g 2^:2 o < d« w g_.a CO . po • S <)i H W HIN H« HIN Hii H^ HlW w nl « M (N Tj- H CX3 » ^|N o 8-a w s ■^s ^ !;?; w_^ -h i H|N H'* H-* Hw 00 bh > a : :g e" a « s" : a ^. f fe-| i 5 1 Id 1 ,S3 ,A2 bo ^ 3 3 ;•!'< 3 o H2 ^pj P!| •i^.i; APPENDIX in 527 1^ a -a «!« iHiN Hn hin as « H H o Pi s m w 0. " (N ■a . t : i -s ■ '. v. : -? ? • a 1 : ^ W ^1 rt OS o rO -* O ■* HI O • « 10 vO fO 00 'O 10 ■w H "O rt ^ ^ S CO Tj- Tt a i-flen ". oT O & .! H W pq a a XI to pq pq a s g ° -r-r "» S 5 T Si «> 3 3 <5 S 6 ^ £ £ i5 W 0!i H a H 1 S O Q. cn O u la" £ .g B« ^ pq s ■* ^ N rf < ^: »<8 2 S-8 6 d "S : a a „ c h Albin, ;eDymo lyn, m. . Stevens, Tiittacre J. Stevei Hanna Wm.D Florenc Jas. Al Elinor Wm.W T. and APPENDIX III 529 d ^ ^_^ ,— ^ ^-^ ,-^ ^-s /— ^ 00 00 fO fO t^ ^ • ic e « ^-^ n|^ rH|g(. >n|« t-lM nl=o . ^-^ a^ -^ 00 Th M M H ' '^ N ■-> * CO 3 a H a <>-> ^ ja • : : : : 2 4^ : • • • si : : : : : 4) s 11 :? m w ^ : aa^i!^ bo ^3 odheg adheg decro odcro idecro bO 6 P P5 ^Im^w ^ Tf « w . PO «^ '^ "-^ ^ v^ ^_^ -^ ^i„ ■ ^ ^ ~ '^12 crt ' o tH ■ IT) \0 ^-N . ^_^ ^-^ 10 ■ HM «!■* ^— ' ■ 10 ^ 10 ,-^ \0 w ^ * — ' fh|W i-llN U -d fO II ,-— s CO • c/5 s d'e 00 ro • kl d w M ff) 10 ,^ ^ S=3 N W^ H .^-- a 0) M ^^ f^ i'§ ^|(N ^-^ H-* ^ cjm 10 -^ •a J i-llN •iTi 00 ^ g 4 ■^ fO cs 10 ro •? be •5 ml B a o r S J- aJ^, s e ^ f^ I '^ eg g ^ ^ S £. (§ o w I"? H H d S30 APPENDIX III ■si u a -a ^W *J H < iS N M ro ■9cj SB SS S S 5 b ed O U ffd E g ^ u^ « . 1 " M « ^ • » o Xi u ^ a a « ^l-g^^ i o u C" u O B ra s S a el .S 2 u 0\ to N fO O (fl fH|N «!•* r*|N rtl-* M £ & T3 wite r<|-« raw i-i|ie WW t>. \0 x^ rO lO c*5 (^ M a s J- a^g •a f E; en tS ■a '•B ^ a V a ^(3 a 1 a 1" 5 1 Q s ►2. S (5 n § .^2 Hw H« «Hi 5.^ -^I* HN HlM ■ao 10 00 w^ 2 g i B lO w N ;j M W rt a HIN 1 1' 1 1 r^ ■^ r^ t^ r^ 1 >o M • t> 1" « .s W n "S @ ■sj 1 5t3 -^IN HN § ^ < Pi 1 t^ ^ is r>. Ov 0\ 00 »0 Oi O d t^ og rtTS -HtW MIN B M o m 1 o\ >o y^ 00 ^ o .2l« O " U H M a< ^ a CO '-' ■6 -a i e ^ ^ pq Pi s s e en en ■3-S a •a pq a § B I .a a _ 1-1 d ■ a ca o ai m pq 532 APPENDIX III as as CI 10<^10IH 1H low m!« Hn H^ "flioo M^* m 1 S 12; o H CO I a sag' 5 O. S S M Oi -C (-^ « CJ f^ ^1 o a . ■ o , a o O « APPENDIX III 533 f3 f o o a-o Hi-* as " 2 as - w pq iH oO « Oi « O* H CO ^ « \0 ^ w \0 OO lO 00 ^ oO w N 00 (v^ ■U ill o so •* « lO O « Tt lo r^ 0\ a •2S 2 Hi-* HIN r < " H|N H« HlN HIN ral-* H|« —I-* HN H-* > '.So .-l a a 5 ° g sj? Sea M O g o ^ -^ o o .| „ m fn S Ah> ^ ^ ^ k; o a a' ^- g" I c i3 -3 i^i s a 8 = ■ - 3 -S 3 O a a - X3 ,°^^wS-< H a 534 APPENDIX III 1^ Oi O to c^ lo g ^- Th OO" g -XJ N M HI!. 8 a 1 6 past. East field 3 Cathills 3, Little Garban s 1 i 1 1 ^1 : ■ ^1 s ■■tl 1 o 3 : : -c (u .3 S • Si ^ to 1 Lang Whit Hare s pq - 2 « .3 II \0 • • M u HN 3 &3 O lO to 00 • t>. « 10 . c V H >■ 1-^^ i i> !a S n Pi i 1 •s a ^2 O U 5« -d N ■Jj ■n s to • to • ; rt y s ■■^ \ ■ 00 a tH ■ ffl fn FQ K ■5 E SO « M M • H < s I^ (^ fi 3 « m [:^ n ^ S S B 53 o ..^ o ■c i d O ^ fa H Hi'* . H|-« s a •C e J -3 g JT § ^ c S ' y .2 c3 K I < E iz; S o « »2, K ii -f o H n APPENDIX III 535 0^ 00 N ^O ** s ^ ■3 -a H|M W|>(l «!■* ^ ^ Oi lO CO b< n R* a a-ri .°. "B o i «» ^1 « « ;^ .q Ti r,f HN 2s M '^ w II r*\V* n\1t H|M FHJN ihIN rtjN iH|M »Hi o a H £i! a s s w o a a aS -§ C uT !?'E rt ^'- H rt N -g •s ^ w •3 w o ^•S ^ ►2. O ^d ^_a O lU W Iz; d 6 s ^ 3 o < a o rf be w o a W3 a a u 536 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV PARLIAMENTARY ENCLOSURES IN OXFORDSHIRE Townships in which More than Three-fourths of the Area, Exclusive OF the Waste, was Enclosed between 1758 and 1864 Date of Area in' Total Area Common Open-field Arable anc Old Enclosures Enclosure Township igo2i Allotted in or Waste I^eadow Known or Award the Award Allotted Allotted Estimated 1768 Adderbury (East and West), Bodicot, 527s 4310 ? [4310] [965]' and Milton 1777 Alkerton 741 689 [32] [657] [52]' 1816 Amcot 1697 1392 270 II22 305° 18381 1859/ Ascot-under-Wychwood 1832 14921 144/ 144 1492 196 5 185s Aston and Cote 2982 2690 1464 1226 [292]^ 1767 Aston, Steeple 1071 989 ? [989] [82]^ 1794 Barford, Little 724 681 [is] [666] [43]' 1796 Barton, Westcote 1 Barton, Middle / 910 1 1326/ 2018 2018 [218] » 1794 Bicester, King's End I4SS 1329 [300] [1029] [126] 2 1770 \ 1851/ Black Bourton 2347 20301 40/ 40 2030 [277]* 1777 Blackthorn 2026 1772 ? [1772] [254]' 1802 Bloxham 3139 2773 [173] [2600] [366]' 1778 Bourton, Great and Little 1669 1461 [61] [1400] [208] » 1802 Brightwell Baldwin 1609 1323 I,. TOO [1223] [286]' 1776 Brize Norton 326s 2442 ? [2442] [823]' 1776 Burcott 670 616 ? [616] [54]^ 179s \ 1773/ Burford \ Upton and Signet / 753 \ 2172 / 1370 \ 803/ 2173 [752]* 1804 Cassington 2263 I914 c. 400 1514 [349]^ 1767' Chesterton 2340 [i86o]' ? [i860] [480] 2 1770 1 1849/ Chipping Norton, 1 Salford, Over Norton / 636s 4805! 165/ 335 \ 165/ 4470 [i39Sl' * These areas refer only to the land within the township, not to the water. 2 Estimated by subtracting the area allotted from the total area of the township. ' Estimated by subtracting the area allotted from the total area of the township. An estimate from the tithe allotment is possible but it gives fewer acres of old enclosures. ^ Estimated from the tithe allotment. s Estimated from the plan. " The area of the old enclosure is stated in a schedule. ' The date and area are derived from the petition to parliament, not from the award. 8 The area in 1808 was 1850 acres. APPENDIX IV 537 Date of Enclosure Award Township Area in 1902 1 Total Area Allotted in the Award Common or Waste Allotted Open-field Arable and Meadow AUotted Old Enclosures Known or Estimated 1776 Claydon 1 190 1024 1024 [166] » 1854 1 1773/ Cottisford l Heath J 1062 ■) 1423/ 1200 ) 804/ 250 95° 1 804/ [481]^ 1853 Cowley, Temple 1 Cowley, St. Johns / 908 1 S9S/ 908 1 39°/ 200 80/ 708 1 310/ [20s] ^ 177s Cropredy 1809 1583 20 1563 [226]' 1808 Deddington 4260 376s ? [3765] [495]^ 1794 Duns Tew 1749 1528 c. 200 1328 [221] 2 1773 Epwell 1 140 1069 ? [1069] [71]* 1849 1 iSzgJ Fencott and 1 M-urcott / "35 9821 153/ 40 ■) 153/ 942 [20] 5 1808 Fritwell 1742' I7S7 75 1682 [93]* 18171 1863/ Fulbrook 1848 iSoo'l 120 J 120 J 1500 [128]^ 1823 Garsington 2233 2040 [13s] [1905] [193]^ 1846 Grafton 623 S12 c 130 382 [hi]' 1804 1 1824/ Headington I9SS i4SSl 240/ 240 1 1280 [260]' 1802 Heyford, Lower 1 and CoUcolt / 1748 1508 [125] [1383] [240] ^^ 1842 Heyford, Upper 1614 1465 [65] [1400] 149 « 1766 Horley \ Homton J 1191 1 1422 / 2289 ? 2289 [324]* 1858 Horsepath IIS4 950 240 710 [204]= 1831 Horton cum.Studley 1287 1067 317 75° [220] 5 1778' Idbury, Bowld, & Foscot 1563 1542' ? [1542] [21]^ 1830 Iffley 388 322 [22] [300] 66 « 1808 IsUp 1988 1588 1-300 1288 [400] « 1799 ■Kelmscott 1028 960 [200] 760 [68] = 1767 Kencott 1083 96s 232 733 [118]* 1818 Kidlington and Thrup 2978 2300 [300] [2000] [678] "^ 1850 Klngham 1872 1798 t: 100 1698 [74]^ 1819 Littlemore 861 770 770 [91]' 1794 Milcombe 1254 "35 [135] [1000] [119]'' 1844 Milton, Great 1436 1289 [275] [1014] [147]' ' The petition to parliameat is the only source of information. It meations no area, that given above being purely conjectural. ^^ The s8 acres of common were not enclosed by the award. ^* The 528 acres of common were not enclosed by the award. 12 This enclosed area is that of the other hamlets of the large parish of Enstone. The com- mon fields of one of them, Radford, were enclosed by agreement in 1773 (cf. John Jordan, Parochial History of Enstone, London, 1857, p. 290). " The enclosure relates mainly to the open arable fields of Berrick Prior, Newington having been largely enclosed already. " The area in 1802 was 1065 acres. S38 APPENDIX IV Date of Enclosure Township Area in 1902 ^ Total Area Allotted in Common or Waste Open-field Arable and ftleadow Old Enclosures Known or Award the Award Allotted AUotted Estimated 1849 Milton-under-Wychwood 2079 i8ss 600 1255 [224]* 1729 = Mixbury 244s [2000] " ? [2000] [445]' 1797' Mollington 1438 1150' ? [1150] [288]^ 1856 North Stoke 835 775 775 606 1791I 1829/ Oddington 1360 9231 312/ 312 923 [I2S]» 1776 RoUright, Great 2414 1923 [100] [1823] [491]* 1768 Sandford St. Martin 2287 1739 [50] [1689] [548]' 1780 Shennington 1628 1434 [400] 1034 [194]* 1768' Shipton-on-Cherwell IIOO [900I' ? [900] [200] 2 1790 Sibford Ferris 1007 945 [45] [900] •[62] 2 1774 Sibford Gower and 1 Birdrup / 1758 i66s [65] 1600 [93]^ 176s' Somerton i960 1800' ? [1800] [160] 2 1795 South Newington 1436 1367 [isl [I3S2] [69] '^ 1856 South Weston 484 434 434 [50]' i8S3 Standlake 2579' 1 761 [424] 1337] Brighthampton Hardwick 618 438 J 1168} [230]} 476 [ 462 i [706] » 1774 Stanton Harcourt 3413 2648 ? 2648 [765]* 1804 Stonesfield 817 739 [250] [489] [78]^ 1776 Tadmarton 2070 1939 ? [1939] [131]* 1822 Taynton 1998 i860 210 1650 [1331 = 1794 Tew, Little 1794 1519 [100] [1419] [275I'' 1853 Warborough 1674 IS47 175 1372 [127] = 1762 Wardington, Cotes, 1 and Wilcote / 2664 1 318/ 241 1 [50] [2361] [571]^ 1 801 Wendlebury 1148 1080 [125] [955] [68] » 1777 WestweU I44S 1238 ? 1238 [207]^ 1813 Wheatley 988 862 120 742 [I26]» 1796 Wigginton 1187 1 1 24 190 934 [63]^ APPENDIX IV 539 Townships in which from One-half to Three-fourths of the Area, Exclusive op the Waste, was Enclosed between 1758 and 1864 Date of Enclosure Award Township Area in 1902 ^ Total Area Allotted in the Award Common or Waste AUotted Open-field Arable anij Meadow Allotted Old Enclosures Known or Estimated 1797 \ 1851/ Alvescot 2080 1382 1 40/ [100?] 1 40 J [1232] [662]* 18141 1862/ Asthall 1 [and Asthalleigh] / 2246 II92'1 374/ 374 1192 [680] 2 183s \ Aston Rowant I r T ^ 1858] Kingston Blount • 2920 254/ [365] '':? [1150]^ Chalford J 254 J 1840 Baldon, Toot \ Baldon, Marsh J 1564! 826/ 1061I 560/ I06I 1 514/ 5°i'\ 46 266"/ 1808 Barford Magna I132 604 [20] [584] 528^ 1863 Bensington 2908 1522 [60] [1462] [1386]^ 1863 Berrick Salome 603 448 [15I [433] [155]^ 1766'' Bladon 830 [480]' ? [480] [350] » 184s Brightwell Salome \ Brightwell Prior J 884 1 720/ 7361 376/ 100 1 57/ 636 1 319 i [492]^ 1776 Broadwell 1 Filkins J 1776 1 1779/ 2586 [200?] [2386] [969]' 1814 \ 1860/ Chadlington, East.Westl 3446 1 1671/ 3252! 58/ [352]! 2900 [1807]^ and Chilsonback J 58/ 1845 Chalgrove 2432 1764 [75] [1689] [668] 5 1858 Charlton-on-Otmoor 820 58s 5 580 [235]' 1854 1 1846/ Chinnor \ Hempton Winnall J 2711 940 1 735-1 [160] \ [780]! 735 J [978]^ 1788 Churchill ■ 2838 2165 c. 500 166s [673I' 1839 Clanfield 1788 lOIO lOIO [778]^ 1787 Coggs 2274 1489 250 1239 [785]^ 1861 Dorchester and Overy 1917 1 001 70 931 [916]^ 1861 Drayton near Dorchester 1287 897 40 857 [390]' 1839 Ducklington 1923 1029 1029 [894] = 1802 ■ 1803 33421 1000 1 2387 Ensham S4IO 45 [1995]' 1807. 28 J 28 J 1761' Fringford 1456 [980]' ? [980] [476]^ 1797 Hampton Poyle 800 593 15 578 [207] = 1773 Handborough 2248 1385 [50] 1335 [913]^ 1774 Hook Norton and 1 Southrop J 5493 4092 ? 4092 [i40i]3 181S Kirtlington 3541 261S [325] [2290] [926]^ 1814 Launton 2816 1901 [3001 [1601] 915° S40 APPENDIX IV Date of Enclosure Award Township Area in igo2 1 Total Area Allotted in tlie Award Common or Waste Allotted Open-field Arable and Meadow Allotted Old Enclosures Known or Estimated i8is\ 1859/ Lewknor Postcombe / 2664 1800 1 22 / [250] 1 22 J [1550] [842]' 1788 Lyneham 1938 1 148 [200?] [948] [790]^ 1839 MUton, Little 1342 902 5° 852 [440]^ 1 759 North Leigh 2409 173s 380 135s [674]'' 1758 Piddington 2351 1420 c. 400 1020 [931]^ 1852 Shipton-under- ^ Wychwood / 2513 1765 568 1 197 [748]' 1766 Shutford 1360 866 866 [484]' 17941 1774/ South Leigh 2359 1267 1 243/ 306 961 \ 243/ [849]' 18031 1780/ Spelsbury 1 Dean J 4297 1756 1 675/ '[^70]! [30]/ [1586]! [64S)j [imtv 1778 Stanton St. John 2730 1567 [67] 1500 [ii(>iV 1813 Stoke Talmage 868 489 [601 [429] [379]' 1772 Swalcliffe 1678 972 972 [706]' i8is\ 1857/ Swinbrook 1710 792 \ 60/ [528]" 60 \ 792 340' 1826 Sydenham 1 547 960 960 587^ 1767 Tew, Great 3002 1778 1,. 300 1478 [1224]^ 1834 Wolvercot 1023 557 557 [466?] » 1770 Wooton 4211 2366 [300] 2066 [1845]' 1 80s Wroxton and Balscott 2531 1850 285 1565 miv APPENDIX IV 541 TOWNSHrPS IN WHICH FROM OnE-FOUETH TO OnE-HALF OF THE ArEA, Exclusive of the Waste, was Enclosed between 1758 and 1882 Date of Enclosure Township Area in 1902 ^ Total Area Allotted in Common or Waste Open-field Arable and Meadow Old Enclosures Known or Award the Award Allotted AUotted Estimated 1831I 1829/ Beckley 1 Otmoor / 3610 690 1 1445-1 220 "1 1445/ 470 [1475]' 1758 Bicester, Market End 2280 1045 [45?] [1000] [1235]' 1780 Bucknell 1891 848 [20] [828] [1043]' 1780' Caversfield "l Stratton Audley f 1275 \ 2300/ [iioo]' ? [iioo] [2475]' 18341 1865/ Caversham 2363 593 \ 252/ 252 593 [1518]^ 1882 Crowell 996 358 358 [638]^ 1813 Culham 1963 IIOO 270 830 [863] = 184s Curbridge 2856 mo 200 910 [1746]^ 1848 Denton 543 170 170 373' 1844 1 1843/ Enstone, Church \ Enstone, Neat / 6243 "381 1189/ 2327 [3916]" 1763 Merton 1926 c. 540 540 [1386]^ 1760 Neithrop 1 Banbury J 3302 \ 79/ 1038 [75] [963] [2343I' 181S Newington 1 Berrick Prior i 2IOS e. 636 636 [1469]" 1862 Ramsden 920 514 c-325 189 406 « 1788 Sarsden 1426 757 185 572 [669] 2 1837 \ 1867/ Shiplake 2700 699 1 223/ 223 699 [1778]^ 1806 Shirbum 2416 "73 [270] [903] [1243I'' i8s3 South Stoke \ Woodcote J 33SS 1728 250 1478 [1627] = 1803 Swerford 1923 851 120 731 [1072]'' 1873 Tackley 2892 1387 1387 1505' 1826 Thame, Priest End, \ North Weston / S187 2330 150 2180 [2857]^ 181S Watlington 3685 1534 C-S50 984 [2151]'' 1806 j 1813/ Whitchurch 1965 5931 115/ "5 593 [1257]' 542 APPENDIX IV Townships in which Less than One-fourth of the Area, Exclusive OF THE Waste, was Enclosed between 1758 and 1864 Date of Enclosure Award Township Area in igo2 1 Total Area Allotted in the Award Common or Waste Allotted Open-field Arable and Meadow Allotted Old Enclosures Known or Estimated 1864 Checkendon 3086 S7S 98 477 [2511] "^ 1802 Drayton near Banbury 926" 199 80 119 866 6 1863 Ewelm 2484 458 4S8 [2026] 2 1788 1 1812J Goring 4580 878 1 842/ 842/ 863 [2860] 2 1824 1 1853/ Hailey 2814 S02\ 100 J 100 J 502 [22I2]» 1822 Haseley, Great 3232 495 495 [2737]' 1856 1 1863/ Ipsden 3418 100 / 100/ 521 [2797]' 1837 1 i860 J Leafield 900 1841 90/ 90 184 [626] 2 1823 Noke 790 132 132 [658]' 184s \ 1853/ Northmoor 2014 430 1 30/ 430 \ 3°/ 1554' 180S North Newington 1 Broughton / II06 1 967/ S14 c. 100 414 1559° 1852 Pyrton 33°S 630 176 454 [2675] » i860 Rotherfield Greys 2605 15° 150 [2455]'' 1794 Stoke Lynn and Fewcott 3899 1761 c. 1361 c. 400 [2138]^ APPENDIX V 543 APPENDIX V EXTRACTS FROM THE SURVEY OF AN ESTATE LYING IN NEWCHURCH, BILSINGTON, AND ROMNEY MARSH, KENT Add. MS. 37018, ff. 42-70.1 DoLA Godewini iacet in villa de Newecherche et in marisco de Romene inter feodum sacristie ecclesie Christi Cantuariensis et Dolam Mawgeri et capitat ex parte australi ad regiam stratam que ducit a cruce Johanis Cobbe usque Northene. Et predicta Dola continet xl acras terre iacentes coniunctim. Et debet ad terminum sancti Andree Apostoli vs. de redditu assise [rents and services follow in detail]. Summa xviiis. ob. q. Adam Osbarne tenet de predicta Dola viii acras terre et quartam partem unius acre, viz., dimidiam acram terre iacentem iuxta stratam supradictam et fuit quondam mesuagium Michaelis Galiot et i acram terre vocatam longreche et i acram et dimidiam terre vocatas hegeton et ii acras terre vocatas hoUand et ii acras et tres partes imius acre vocatas Flothame. Et debet ad terminum sancti Andree xiid. q. de redditu assise. . . . Willielmus atte Mede tenet de predicta Dola iii acras terre et dimidiam, viz., iii partes unius acre iacentes iuxta mesuagium Michaelis Galyot et i acram terre et dimidiam iacentes iuxta hegetownys et i acram terre et quartam partem unius acre iacentes in hoUand. Et debet ad terminum sancti Andree vd. q. de redditu assise. . . Johanes Northene tenet de predicta Dola i acram terre et dimidiam iuxta hegetownys versus australem. Et debet. . . Ricardus de Northene tenet in predicta Dola iiii acras terre, viz., i acram et dimidiam terre vocatas Seadfeld et iii partes i acre iacentes iuxta hegetownys et i acram et iii partes i acre terre vocatas hoUand. Et debet. . . . Johanis Symon de Newcherche tenet de predicta Dola iiii acras terre, viz., iii partes xmius acre vocatas longereche et i acram et dimidiam vocatas Seadfeld 1 Cf. above, p. 287. 544 APPENDIX V et i acram et quarta pars [sic] unius acre terre iacentem in holland et dimidiam acram iacentem iuxta. Et debet. . . . Robertus Londer tenet de predicta Dola quartam partem i acre terre vocatam longereche iuxta feodum Sacristie ecclesie Christi Cantuarien- sis. Et debet. . . Johanes Pimdherst tenet de predicta Dola tres partes i acre vocatas longreche. Et debet. . . Heredes liamonis Baron tenent de predicta Dola i acram terre et dimidiam iuxta mesuagium Roberti Salmon versus australem. Et debent. . . . Gilbertus de Morton tenet de predicta dola ii acras terre iacentes in Holland. Et debet. Heredes Laurentii Holde tenent de predicta dola ii acras terre et tres partes unius acre, viz., dimidiam acram terre iacentem iuxta Regiam stratam de Northene et i acram et dimidiam in mesuagio Roberti Salmon et tres partes i acre in mesuagio Johanis Salmon vocatas Reye- town iuxta stratam. Et debent. . . . Ricardus Tomelyn tenet de predicta Dola i acram et iii partes i acre iacentes iuxta mesuagium Roberti Salmon versus occidentem. Et predictus Ricardus defendit heredibus laurentii Holde quartam partem unius acre terre iacentem iuxta stratam. Et debet. Heredes Henrici de Bonyngton tenent de predicta Dola i acram terre et tres partes unius acre vocatas terra[m] Gryffyn et iacet iuxta Sande- lyne ex parte boriali. Et debent. . . Johanes Freland tenet de predicta Dola viii acras terre iacentes in Holland. Et debet. . . Summa acrarum istius Dole xl acre unde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum vd. ob. de redditu, mala, et serviciis. Et plus in toto, viz., ad Natalem Christi i gallum, ii gallinas, et ob. q. de redditu Regis. Dimidia Dola Mawgeri iacet in Newcherche et in marisco de Ro- mene et inter Dolam Godewini supradicti et Dolam Storni et capitat ex parte australi ad regiam stratam que ducit a cruce Johanis Cobbe usque Northene et predicta dimidia Dola continet xx acras terre. Et debet. . . Summa viiis. iid. ob. q. Heredes Thome Baker tenent de predicta dimidia Dola v acras terre et iii partes unius acre. Et debent. . . . Adam Osbarn tenet de predicta Dola ix acras et dimidiam acram terre, viz.. APPENDIX V 545 iii acras terre iuxta Twynenton versus North et iii acras in ii pedis iuxta Twynenton versus South et iii acras et dimidiam acram terre iacentes iuxta terram Radulphi Claverynge versus South. Et debet. Idem Adam pro Claverynge de predicta dimidia Dola tenet i acram et iii partes unius acre terre iacentes iuxta predictam terram Ade Osbarne versus North. Et debet. . Heredes Ricardi Pundherst tenent de predicta dimidia Dola iii acras terre vocatas Twyneneton que fuit quondam mesuagium Hamonis Wodman. Et debent. . Summa acrarum istius dimidie Dole xx acre Unde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum vd. ob. de redditu assise, mala, et serviciis. . Alia dimidia Dola Mawgeri iacet in Newcherche in marisco de Ro- mene inter Dolam Godewyni supradicti et Dolam Stomi et capitat ad terram Radulphi Claveryng versus North et ad terram Nicholai de Bonyngton versus South et continet predicta dimidia dola xx acras terre iacentes coniimctim. Et debet. Summa vs. iiid. ob. Johanis Northene tenet in predicta dimidia Dola de terra Ricardi Elys vi acras terre et 1 perticas iacentes iuxta terram Adam Osbarne ex parte australi et iiii acras de terra Ricardi Gryffyn iacentes iuxta predictas vi acras terre ex parte australi et iii acras terre de terra Ricardi Elys iacentes iuxta predictas iiii acras. Et debet. Heredes Henrici Bon3mgton tenent de predicta dimidia dola i acram terre et iii partes unius acre terre iacentes iuxta Sandelyne versus North et iiii acras terre vocatas Sandelyne et i acram terre et iii partes unius acre terre vocatas Borefeld que iacent iuxta predictam Sandelyne versus australem. Et de- bent. . Summa acrarum istius dimidie Dole xx acre unde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum iiid. q. Dola Stomi iacet in Bylsington et in Newcherche et in marisco de Romene ex parte boriali et australi ad Regiam stratam que ducit a cruce Johanis Cobbe versus Northene et continet predicta Dola xlii acras terre unde viii acre terre et quarta pars unius acre iacent coniunc- 546 APPENDIX V tim in Bylsyngton et xxxiii acre terre et tres partes unius acre iacent in Newcherche. Et debet predicta dola. . Summa xviiis. I d. q. Item in predicta dola sunt iiii vetera mesuagia. . . . Johanis Pundeherst tenet de predicta Dola in Bylsington iii acras iacentes ex parte north iuxta pontem malegare. Et in Newcherche xxii acras terre et dimidiam acram, viz., iii acras terre et quartam partem unius acre iacentes ex parte australi ad Wychysland et ii acras terre et tres partes unius acre vocatas Wychysland et i acram et tres partes unius acre vocatas Wylespot et fuit quon- dam mesuagium Johanis de Northene et V acras terre et dimidiam acram terre iacentes ex parte North iuxta predictam Wylespot et viii acras terre et quartam pars [sic] unius acre de terra Edwardi Freland iacentes in Holland. Et debet. Heredes Richardi Pimdherst tenent de predicta Dola iii acras et dimidiam acram terre iacentes in Newcherche ex parte occiden- tali ad Wychysland et fuit quondam mesuagium Roberti de Northene. Et debent. . . Gilbertus de Morton tenet de predicta Dola in Bylsyngton in mesua- gio Roberti atte hope i acram et dimidiam vocatas Barattispot iacentes iuxta regiam stratam de Northene versus North. Et debet. . Heredes Ricardi Thomelyn defendunt de predicta Dola Johani Bordon i acram terram et dimidiam iacentes in Bylsyngton iuxta terram prioris de Bylsyngton vocatam mentere versus West. Et debent. Ricardus Baker pro Petham tenet de predicta Dola in Newcherche i acram et tres partes i acre terre vocatas Bradfeld iacentes inter ter- ram vocatam Hegemede et terram Johanis Pundherst. Et debet. Heredes Thome Baker tenent de predicta Dola in Newecherche v acras terre vocatas Hegemede et fuit quondam mesuagium Hamonis atte Hope iacentes iuxta Stormstrete ex parte Est et predicti heredes defendunt heredibus Roberti Holde ii acras vocatas similiter Hege- mede iacentes in Newcherche iuxta Stormstrete ex parte Est in imo campo continent! ii acras terre et dimidiam et predicti heredes Thome Baker defendunt Henrico atte Neshe i acram et quartam partem unius acre iacentes in Bylsington iuxta terram prioris de Bylsyngton voca- tam men tege vel secundum quosdam lonekyns acre. Et debent. . Prior de Bylsyngton tenet de predicta Dola in Bylsyngton unam acram terre vocatam mentege vel . . Lonekynes acre. Et debet. . . . APPENDIX V 547 Summa acrarum istius dole xlii acre terre imde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum vd. q. Dimidia Dola de Westbrege iacet in Newcherche et in marisco de Romene ex parte orientali et occidentali ad Regiam stratam que ducit a Bylsyngton usque Newcherche et continet predicta dimidia Dola xxii acras terre. Et debet. . . . Item in predicta dola est unum vetus mesuagium . . et debet. . . . Johanes Pundeherst tenet de predicta dimidia dola iii acras terre in duobus campis vocatis Longefeld iacentes iuxta Stormistrete versus occidentem et iii acras terre vocatas Stretefeld iacentes ex parte orien- tali iuxta Regiam Stratam. Et debet. Heredes Ricardi Pundherst tenent de predicta dimidia Dola ix acras iacentes ex parte occidentali ad Regiam stratam, viz., vi acras terre vocatas morefriztege et iii acras vocatas Utle- friztege. Et debent. Heredes Edwardi Godard tenent de predicta dimidia dola iiii acras iacentes ex parte orientali ad Regiam stratam, viz., i acram vocatam Hegespot et fuit quondam mesuagium Johanis atte Bregge Et ii acras iuxta predictas ii acras et i acram vocatam Hegespot [sic]. Et debent. . Heredes Ricardi Thomelyn tenent de predicta dimidia Dola iii acras terre iacentes ex parte orientali ad Regiam stratam. Et debent. . Summa acrarum istius dimidii Dole xxii acre unde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum vd. de redditu assise, mala, et serviciis. . . Dola de Kyngessnothe iacet in Bylsyngton et in Newcherch et in marisco de Romene ex parte orientali et occidentali strate que ducit a Bylsyngton usque molendinum Ricardi Staple et continet predicta Dola xlvi acras et dimidiam acram terre unde in Bylsyngton sunt xiiii acre terre et tres partes unius acre terre et in Newcherch sunt xxxi acre et tres partes unius acre terre. Et debet. Heredes Jacobi de Kyngessnothe tenent totam predictam Dolam unde in Bylsyngton sunt xiiii acre et tres partes unius acre terre, viz., ix acras et dimidiam acram terre vocatas Nessland iacentes ex parte occidentali strate supradicte iuxta mesuagium Radulphi Wole- wyke et iiii acras et dimidiam acram terre vocatas Pykottismede iacentes ex parte occidentali strate supradicte iuxta terram Johanis Pundherst vocatam Pykottismede. 548 APPENDIX V Item predict! heredes tenent tres partes unius acre terre vocatas Alderwynisland iacentes ex parte oriental! strate supradicte iuxta Seadfeld et fuit quondam mesuagium Roberti de Kyngessnothe. Item predicti heredes tenent de predicta dola in Newchurch ex parte orientali strate supradicte xxxi acras terre et tres partes unius acre terre, viz., vii acras terre vocatas Redmede iacentes iuxta Alderwynisland et V acras terre vocatas Hokydefeld et ii acras et tres partes unius acre terre vocatas longehamme et vi acras et dimidiam acram terre vocatas marketfeld et unam acram et quartam partem unius acre terre iacentes in alia pecia iuxta predictam Marketfeld et ii acras et dimidiam acram terre vocatas Petfeld et ii acras et dimidiam acram terre in alia parte iuxta predictam Petfeld et tres partes imius acre terre vocatas Hegetown et ii acras et dimidiam acram terre vocatas Bachousefeld et i acram terre vocatam homstalle iacentem iuxta stratam pre- dictam versus orientem. Et debent. . . . Summa acrarum istius Dole xlvi acre. . . . APPENDIX VI 549 X a Q H fin < Q ►J W I CO a; o H O H > p< CO < W PQ O U Q » -*< nH* .^ hW r4n nt* lO O fO »-' ^ M a ^ 1 J^ sn .2 '^ 5 -^ B [» : o j3 ■ a < O U tj 1.9 ho ' I -2 -9 .a I H ^ H H ■^ p p I- OJ « , hfi +^ U ^ ^ H > 'no" i|.a« a S Oi O SSo APPENDIX VI CI rt 00 -^ CO rO Ht O o o M >6 n o P4 to H Bi (N ( ) m 3 -3* § n - o w ii> M Pi H ■n [if c o i-I p< o a 11 g H i5 y w M a u ^ ja r u rtl-K n OO , .y ,jj s M H T-l 1 "^ c o w N N \0 CO 2 U • m ■ ^ 4=1 \0 fO £ S Ph ^ O rt < o APPENDIX VI SSI e.a ^ ■ M ro 3 H|N rt|P» HUM . t+^ M-. ^ £ m -y ti rM -d « O J3 O 0) ?3 c« Pm *fi^ P P^ « m (U Q m PM tn irt M « g K l-H i o5 o H-. S- 2 CI s tfl MM . rH|« • • X to o O • H 00 .S ^ en H H 1 H 1) -S 5! itt >. HN MlN 1^ W fO U-) CI M PO „ o" S ^ "H 8^ » ^« o — "3 "3 '5 2 K 3 IH "^ (U OJ OJ Q4 ^ 3 »-l D n ^"3 el t-t vo Q m E J3 • d HO * .S -^ -a CO HN o ^O CO « £: -S ^ a M " CI . 4-) fa ro S N 01 - 13 O b. g :§•§ •3 -o O J 2 a O cd •J5 -g =a a a -s «-S o -a s s 1— . u 0< 111 H - o a a t55 a g Eh « .W APPENDIX VI 553 2 5 ^ as ^ nh* -^ o *>S Si ^0. 63 Km lag 8, "-"^l f Si8 ■•6 H^ c-K n w "^ ^ c! y H S 1 1 S S S I =3 -1^ 1 a .a i < 1 C/i 111 P^ S S 1 1 i Pi 1 1 3 E ^ t-l 554 APPENDIX VI ■u ckew com field ,Rid 3 S: Si Great Pu At deane Woodley Wengell 3 E 3 m o .a S s2 p ^ M r^ Tj- vo Itl §2 ja*3 la .2 0. 5 D 1 T) s a wl« *^ rHtn H« wl« H^ n|« li^ Tj- vo w M 00 ^O fO V^ XI a s ^ rt hn •n (l> > ^ >; >> a a 73 r o M U a a ») u ^ :q 3 ■t) o d 3 I-) bo be a e. o o -a"s "11 1^ ►^ TO o o I ^ 11 en •S s S ^ U) ^ 'a APPENDIX VI sss as as iHlN n]^ ^|.« . HIN n|-« H'* S pq il Sj ^ rtW rH[N H|N MM M M CO H|N H|cq HiN H u h g^ VO«H .„„„ ^2 \n ■^ . ■ « >«3 Ti- N lO M CO "O H (M > > a s > H ^ i K i --rt s J^ m rt 1-1 1-1 i-i i-i b^ ^ -a .•§ i i £.w p< rt tH ■ • E? •c ■> > H .- > 556 APPENDIX VI w t^ 1 s M o W g CO o W 3 §■ H ^ g M-1 H O bb 3 < •s K H •a T3 rt r1 4J ti3 -d Pi M o w 1 o" en M rH|N !=! s 2 pq lU 'C tj-i lit! H|N M :=! CO .y (U M 'C > t3 2 1 m O o fh|N •h cs H O 2 2 Ah '53 'm r^lW [A ^ H H u .S ■!-> w H|N <.^ ^ M C! ^ « 'w a, -^ ^ H IS o ti^ 1 3 u 4 i-||N H s 00 T3( 1 o m 'O .^ »-l en ■K en 3 ^ ni (U M w ^ 3 o Hf* ^ M 2 •73 4-1 i 5 03 teg i-i t3* ■a M o 1-5 ^ -. ^0 2 "^ w a ^ . 1 W >. >v c>2 s 4) V « ; ^ H rO fO vo a w o lo 6 « ^ o\ • "^1^ fli 1^ W 2 < H-* H|N Wlw 3 Tl a 8 rt tj -* ^ o a "Hi Si en te a " " -4-1 ^ a " « 03 M en « S c - " W 2 >= Cfi ^(§^ o "' rt C o 558 . 2 w m u O Iz" g o !? id APPENDIX VI o o as 1 .a Roake Elin ak Crofts i nsington Cr Crofts 5i S ■sss^ ,5i &.a.a.s !a §•3 1 S3 O 3 M ==■ ji ji £ to ^ IS - * o 3 S >^ •*• U 3 S H C4 a -9 < a < 5 s is s 1 a § H 6| a PL. Is ^ Ph d d o i (3 O H £, a a nt ?, w a en 1 '^ .y p^ z ^ i 6 <" a APPENDIX VI 559 ■-(]'# n\^ iHlN as II I— > o o 1S& C3T3 OT3 (u .a« — ►J t3 c2 Ij O^-^-^H rooOto^ On !H » = s •2-a-B ■^^i «!■* HiN HlN HlN S-sl CO vo M yD w HI "^ a :h ^ O Cfi •— -a ^ II ^ o S -^ S fl ^ X) i> -^ ^ g J ofW cum t de, in a ^ a •- •a 13 u I -a 3 s — •3 §5 -J o O e d) g ■- -a So <" «i 2 -^ — '^ a) ^ •5 n « t— pi ij _ o -j3 o a^ =5 a «|i» r*H H|« H|« M O a s s si^a = a a i d i ^ d a' y ■ -■ _2 ^ O C '-' :- a a s O) *j 0) O -•-' 1—1 d O P ^ 3 ^ e a -^ < M s . d rt . y j3 -5 .y W ,P^ .0 .0 tA d Ml 3 -a g JJ 1^ " 2 ^ -^ I t°) C3 3 '3 V « a |,^ I § -2 ■^. 4> .S o 77 S OJ 60 § 1=1 S :^ 3 l-H rfl =3 g •3 2 INDEX INDEX Acre, the standard, 19. Agriculture, relation of field systems to, 3. 4, 7-12, 403-409- Alciston, Suss., 33, 34. Alfriston, Suss., 33, 443. All Souls College, Oxford, maps of, 34, 77, 274- Altham, Lanes., 244, 245. Alvingham, Lines., 31, 441. Anglesey, common arable fields in, 183-185. Anglo-Saxon charters, 51-61, 410; laws, 61, 62. Anglo Saxons, 71, 298, 304, 409-411, 418. Ansty, Hants., 33, 443. Arden, forest of, 86, 87. Ashbury, Berks., 31. Ashton Keynes, Wilts., 32, 39, 42, 442. Assart, 85. Aston and Cote, Oxons., 118. Auslro, de antiquo, 41, 98. Avon, valley of the, 31, 88. Axholme, Isle of, 103, 532. Bailiffs' accounts, 44. Barfreston, Kent, 280, 281. Barking, Essex, 392, 393. Bawdsey, Suff., 334. Bedfordshire, 34, 35, 70, 79, 444. Bensington, Oxons., 387, 558. Berkshire, 30, 31, 60, 61, 63, 70, 553, 554- Bicester, Oxons., 79. Biddletown, Dorset, 80. Bisley, Surr., 364, 365. Blatchington, Suss^., 33. Bletchingdon, Oxons., 118. Borga, 33. Boundaries, in Anglo-Saxon charters, 51- S6. Bovates, 41, 42. Bower Henton, Somers., 32, 441. Brailes, Upper and Nether, Warks., 29, 437- Brancaster, Norf., 345, 346. Brandon, East, Durham, 105, 534. Braunton Great Field, Devon, 262, 263. Breighton, Yorks., 103, 531. Brent, East, Somers., 98, 525. Brixham, Devon, 259, 261. Bruton, Somers., 100, 528. Buckinghamshire, 63, 70, 76, 77, 80, S52- Butts, 19, 163. Buxton, Norf., 311, 312. Cambridgeshire, 63, 70, 78. Campi (fields), 13, 21, 28, 39. 5ec Fields. Camarton, Corn., 263. Castle Acre, Norf., 314, 315. Caversham, Oxons., 386, 555. Celtic system, 157-205; influence of, in England, 266-271, 404, 405, 412-414, 418. Chalgrove, Oxons., 18-23, 124. Charlbury, Oxons., 117. Charlton Abbots, Gloucs., 30, 438. Charters, Anglo-Saxon, 51-61, 410. Cheshire, 64, 404, 412, 414; field system of, 249-258. Cheshunt, Herts., 376, 550. Chester, Chesh., 250-252. Chiltern hills, enclosures in, 119, 120; field system of, 384-387, 401, 417. Christian Malford, Wilts., loi, 529. Clapton, Gloucs., 89, 517. Clifton, Oxons., 116. Common, or waste, 10, 24, 26, 47, 405, 412-414. Consolidation of open-field parcels, 175, 176, 256, 257. Convertible husbandry, 7, 8, 58 n., 100. 563 564 INDEX Copyholds, 21-23, 25, 27, 28, 41, et passim. Corby, Northants, 44. Cornwall, 63, 404, 412, 414; field system of, 263-266. Corsham, Wilts., 74. Corston, Somers., 100, 528. Cotswolds, the, 29-31, 70, 88-90, 123, 438. Cowpen, Northumb., 222, 223. Crofters, 166-168. Crofts, held in common, 89. Crops, succession of, 44, 45; in Oxford- shire, 124, 125, 129; in Scotland, 158- 160; in Wales, 200; in Northumber- land, 208, 222-225; in Kent, 302; in Norfolk, 318-322, 330, 332, 333; in Suffolk, 331; in Surrey, Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Essex, 396-398. Crown estates, 23. Croxton, Lines., 26. Cidturae, 13, 14. See Furlongs. Culworth, Northants, 80, 477, 482. Cumberland, 64, 404, 412-414; field system of, 227-242. Curry Mallett, Somers., 99, 527. Customary holdings. See Copyholds. Dales, 21, 163. Damerham, South, Wilts., 24. Danes, 71, 298, 304, 352-354, 416. Darliston, Salop, 68. Day's work, 300, 301 . Deal, Kent, 276. Demesne, 8, 24, 28 n., 34, 35, 315, 444; tillage of, 43-46. Denbighshire, 178-183. Derbyshire, 12, 63, 139. Devonshire, 63, 404, 412, 414; field system of, 258-266. Disintegration of holdings, 94-97. Dola, 286, 287. Donegal, Ireland, townland in, 191. Dorset, 30, 32, 63, 70, 80, 439, 442. Dragga, 15 n. Drayton, Northants, 78, 477, 482. Durham, 36, 63, 70, 404, 446, 534, 535; irregular fields in, 105-107, 408. East Anglia, 48, 416; field system of, 305-354- Edmonton, Mdx., 381, 382, 551. Eggleston, Durham, 106, 535. Egham, Surr., 362-364. Elloughton, Yorks., 36, 446. Elmdon, George, note-book of, 316-324. Enclosure, by agreement, ir6-ii8, 149-152; piecemeal, 145-148, 310- 312, 407. Enclosure awards, 14, 15; for Oxford- shire, 111-114; for Herefordshire, 139- 141, 149, 150; for Norfolk, 305-307. Enclosure maps, 14, 112, and see table of contents. Enclosures, 8-12, 32, 90, 91, 98, loi, 102, 107, 404-408; in Oxfordshire, 110-132; in Herefordshire, 139-141; in Wales, 172, 173; in Northumber- land, 206, 207; in Cumberland, 227- 229; in Lancashire, 242, 243; in Cheshire, 249; in Kent, 272, 273; in Norfolk, 305-312; in Surrey, 356; in Hertfordshire, 370; in Middlesex, 381; in Essex, 387, 388. Epping forest, 388. Eriung, 335-338, 348, 351. Eskirmaen, Wales, 195. Essex, 12, 404, 416, 417; field system of, 387-394, 400. Evenley, Northants, 78, 478, 482. Every-year lands, 92. Ewell, Surr., 399, 400. Ewelm, Oxons., 116, 387, 556. Extents, 14, 43-47. Falda, 342-344. Faldagmm, 342. Famham Royal, Bucks., 385, 552. Faughs, 159, 232. Feet of fines, 13, 62, 68. Feltham, Mdx., 382, 552. Ferthing, 298. Fields, names of, 42, 43, 69; multiplicity of, 89, 93-97, loi, 146-149, 282, 407. See Campi, Two-field system. Three- field system. Four-field system. Six fields. INDEX 56s Fingland, Cumb., 232. Finmere, Oxons., 118. Fold-courses, 316, 325-329, 341-344, 3SO. Folds (falds), 159. Forest areas, 83-88, 119, 120, 138, 407, 417. Four-field system, 88, 103, 104, 125, 126, 13S-137, 406. Frampton Cotterell, Gloucs., 91. Freeholds, 21, 24, 27, 35, 40, 41. Frocester, Gloucs., 8g, 518. Furlongs, 13, 19, 127, 128, 313. Gamlingay, Cambs., 44. Gavelkind, in Wales, 186, 187, 195-199; in Ireland, 191-194; in Kent, 295, 296; in Norfolk, 335-337. Gavelle (wele), 196-198. Gedattand, 59, 60, 61. Gillingham, Dorset, 30, 439. GilBngham, Kent, 282-286. Glastonbury manors, 24, 31, 92. Glebe terriers, 119, 134-136. Gloucestershire, 30, 61, 70, 438, 516- 520; irregular fields in, 88-93. Gores, 19, 55. Great Tew, Oxons., 128-130. Guston, Kent, 275. Hamlets, 268, 407, 412; in Hereford- shire, 95, 153; in Scotland, 167, 168; in Wales, 179; in Ireland, 187-189; in Cumberland, 230, 231; in Devon, 260; in Lancashire, 267. Hampden-in-Arden, Warks., 86, 512. Hampshire, 33, 61, 63, 70, 443. Handborough, Oxons., 27, 28, 40, 430- 437- Hanwell, Oxons., 116. Hartley, Northimib., 220, 221. Haverfordwest, Pembrokes., 174. Hayton, Cumb., 232. Headland, 19, 55. Beafodaecer, or headland, 55, 56. Henley-in-Arden, Warks., 87. Hennor, Herefs., 37. Herefordshire, 36, 37, 63-66, 70, 71, 521- | 523; irregular fields in, 93-97; en- closures in, 139-141; decay of mid- land system in, 139-153, 407, 411, 447- 449- Hertfordshire, 404, 550; field system of, 369-381, 401, 417. Highlands, Scottish, field system of, 161. Hinton St. Mary, Dorset, 32, 442. Hitchin, Herts., 5, 17, 18, 369. Hitching, 132, 133, 134. Holdenby, Northants, 78, 479, 482. Holkham, Norf., 326-330. Holme Cultram, Cumb., 230. Holmer, Herefs., 146. Hoo St. Mary's, Kent, 277, 278. Horton, Gloucs., 90, 519. Houghton Regis, Bedfs., 79, 450, 451. Humberston, Lines., 31, 440. Huntingdonshire, 63, 70. Ilsington, Devon, 260-262. Ine's laws, 61, 62. Infield, 158-161. Ingleton, Durham, 36, 39, 41, 63, 446. Inhoc, 92, 93. Inquisitions post mortem, 44, 46. Ireland, field system of, 187-194. Irregularities in midland area, 83-107, 407. Issacoed, Denbighs., 182. lugum, 282-298, 304, 351, 352, 399. Ivington, Herefs., 94, 522. Kavels (kenches), 169. Kent, 404, 415, 543-548; field system of, 272-304. Kimbolton, Herefs., 37. Kingham, Oxons., 126. Kingsbury, Somers., 98, 524. Kington, Wilts., 24-26, 40, 42, 421-430. Kislingbury, Northants, 79, 479, 483. KnoU, Warks., 86, 513. Lancashire, 64, 404, 412, 414; system of, 242-249. Landescore, 261. Lands, or strips, 19. Last, The, Salop, 68. field 566 INDEX Lazonby, Cumb., 233. Leaseholds, 28, 36, 41. Lectum, 196-198. Leicestershire, 35, 70, 76, 445. Lenton and Radford, Notts., 104, 533. Lesbury, Northumb., 207, 209, 212. Lexham, West, Norf., 314, 317. Leynes, or fields, 33. Leys, or lays, 34, 35. 5ee Meadows. Lincolnshire, 26, 31, 63, 70, 71, 75, 103, 440, 441, S32- Litlington, Cambs., 78, 457, 459. Long Coombe, Oxons., 84, 511. Long Houghton, Northumb., 208-211, 226. Long Lawford, Warks., 78, 500. Lutterworth, Leics., 35, 445. Lynches, 56. Lyng, 328. Manors, in East Anglia, 350-352. Maps, enclosure, 14, 112, and see table of contents; tithe, 14, 15, 18-23. Harden, Herefs., 95-97, 142, 146-148, 150, 153 n. Marshall, William, on Gloucestershire, 91, 92; on the Scottish Highlands, 161; on Norfolk, 307. Marston Sicca, Gloucs., 88, 516. Martham, Norf., 335-339. Mawley, Salop, 37, 38, 449. Meadow strips in arable fields, 35, 106, 408. Meadows, common, 21, 28, 47. Mercia, early open fields in, 62. Merstham, Surr., 366, 367. Middlesex, 404, 551, 552; field system of, 381-384, 402, 417. Middleton, Herefs., 93, 521. Middleton, North, Northumb., 224, 225. Middleton Stony, Oxons., 117. Midland system. See Two-field system. Three-field system. Six fields. Monmouthshire, 64, 271. Morffe forest, 38. Multiplicity of fields, 89, 93-97, loi, 146-149, 282, 407. Names of fields, 42, 43, 6g. Nasse, Erwin, on Anglo-Saxon fields, 6, 51-61 passim. Newchurch, Kent, 286, 287, 543-548. Newington, Kent, 273, 274. New Shipping, Pembrokes., 175, 176. Niton, Isle of Wight, 102, 530. Norfolk, field system of, 305-354. Normans, 297. Northamptonshire, 35, 61, 62, 63, 70, 78, 79, 80. 444- Northumberland, 64, 74, 404, 412-415; field system of, 206-227. Norton St. Philip, Somers., 99, 526. Nottinghamshire, 70, 533; irregular fields in, 104. Oats, cultivation of, in Scotland, 159; in Wales, 200. Ollands, 319, 320. Ouse, valley of the, 63, 70. Outfield, 158-161, 200, 222, 223, 232. Over Arley, Staffs., 87. Owston, Lines., 104, 532. Oxfordshire, 18-23, 27, 28, 29, 31, 61, 63, 70, 76, 79, 80, 84, 438, 510, 511, 536- 542, 555-559; irregular fields in, 84-86; decline of midland system in, 109- 137, 407, 408; enclosures in, 110-132. Oxgangs, 36. OxljTich, Gloucs., 89, 519. Padbury, Bucks., 76. Pasture, common of, 28, 47, 48. Pembrokeshire, 172-178; gavelkind in, 186, 187. Pendicles, 166. Pennard, West, Somers., 99, 526. Perticata, 25. PickhiU and Siswick, Denbighs., 180, 181. Piddington, Oxons., 76, 488. Plena terra, 345, 392. Ploughing, mediaeval, 8, 9. Poynton, Salop, 67, 68. Precincts, 313, 314, 322. Presthope, Salop, 69. Preston, Northumb., 215, 216. Quarters, r26-i3o. INDEX 567 Raines, 228. Ramsden, Oxons., 85, 511. Redland district, 128, 131, 133. Residential townships, 121. Richmond, Surr., 365, 366, 549. Riggs, 163, 222, 227-229, 235. Ringstead, Nori., 345, 346. Risbury, Herefs., 37, 144, 145, 447. River valleys, 88-107, 120, 138. Robeston, Pembrokes., 177, 178. Rocester, Staffs., 87, 515. RoUeston, Staffs., 35, 36, 40, 445. Roman influence on field systems, 5, 12, 41S, 418. Romsley, Salop, 68. Runrig (nmdale), 268, 405, 412-414; in Scotland, 162-167; in Ireland, 191- 195; origin of, 190-199; in Wales, 203. St. Florence, Pembrokes., 176, 177. St. Margaret at Cliffe, Kent, 275. Salford, Bedfs., 34, 4r, 43, 46, 444. Scotland, field system of, 157-171, 201, 202. Seebohm, Frederic, description of Hitchin, Herts., 5, 6, 17; on Anglo- Saxon fields, 51-61 passim. Segregation of strips, 234-237, 245. Sehons, 19, 89; individually named, 254, ^SS- Settlement, relation of field systems to, 3, 12, 13, 409-418; types of, see Hamlets. Severn, valley of the, irregular fields in, 38, 88-93, 406, 408. Shawbury, Salop, 69. Shipton-under-Wychwood, Oxons., 29, 42, 438- Shots, 19. See Furlongs. Shropham, Norfolk, 311, 312. Shropshire, 37, 38, 63, 64, 66-6g, 70, 71, 138, 411, 449; irregular fields in, 108. Six fields, 17, 21, 35, 40. Somerlie, 319, 324. Somerset, 30, 32, 63, 70, 138, 139, 439, 441, 524-528; irregular fields in, 97- lOI. Sonning, Berks., 385, 386, 553, 554. Soulby, Cumb., 232. Staffordshire, 35, 63, 70, 71, 139, 445, 514, 515; irregular fields in, 87. Stewkley, Bucks., 80, 455, 456. Sticca, 59. Stockton, Herefs., 37, 448. Stoke, South, Oxons., 80, 490. Stoke, South, Somers., 30, 39, 439. Stoke Edith, Herefs., 94, 523. Stoke Prior, Herefs., 37, 447. Stonebrach, 131, 133. Stonesfield, Oxons., 84, 510. Stow, Lines., 75. Suffolk. See East Anglia. Sulung, 299, 300. Surrey, 549; field system of, 355-369, 399, 400, 404, 417. Surveys, 15, 23-25, 27-36, 83-107, et passim. Sussex, 33, 63, 443. Sutton, Kent, 276. Sutton at Hone, Kent, 277. Syndrig land, 59. TaUantire, Cumb., 239, 240. Tees, valley of the, 105. Tenementum, 300, 334-341, 344, 351. Terriers, 14, 41, 42, 49, et passim; glebe, 119, 134-136. Thame, Oxons., 124. Thames, meadow-townships on the, 120; field system of the lower, 355-402. Thorley, Isle of Wight, 102. Three-field system, characteristics of, 17-28, 39-48; townships typical of, 27, 28, 32-36; extent of, 34, 39, 62-71; development of, from two-field system, 72-82, 406; deviations from, 83-107; decline of, 124, 125, 135-138, 142-152. Tithe maps, 14, 15, 18-23. Trent, valley of the, 70, 87, 103-105, 408. Two-field system, characteristics of, 17- 26, 39-48; townships typical of, 24- 26,29-31; early history of, 50-62; ex- tent of, 62-70; transformation of, into three-field system, 72-82; deviations from, 83-107; decline of, 123-137, 406. S68 INDEX Twyford, Leics., 76, 471, 473. Typus Colkgii of All Souls College, Oxford, 34, 77, 274. Virgates, 17, 21, 25, 27, 28, 41, 42; in Kent, 298, 299; in Norfolk, 345-347; in Essex, 391-394. Wales, 64; field system of, 171-187, 200. Walter of Henley, on thirteenth-century tillage, 71. Warborough, Oxons., 387, 559. Warton, Lanes., 243, 246. Warwick, Cumb., 236, 237. Warwickshire, 29, 31, 70, 78, 138, 437, 512, 513; irregular fields in, 86, 87. Watling Street, 70. Watlington, Oxons., 387, 557. Wattles, 329, 342, 343, 405. Weasenham, Norf., 316-326. Welford, Gloucs., 88, 516. Welford, Northants, 35, 41, 42, 444. Wellow, Isle of Wight, 31, 440. Wessex, early open fields in, 62. Westmorland, 64, 271. Weston Birt, Gloucs., 30, 438. Wight, Isle of, 31, 440, S30; irregular fields in, 102. Willerby, Yorks., 103, 530. Wiltshire, 24, 25, 32. 33. 60, 70, 74, 442, 529; irregular fields in, roi. Wista, 33. Woodstock forest, 84, 85. Wootton, Oxons., 84, 510. Wootton-under-Weaver, Staffs., 87, 514. Worcestershire, 61, 139. Wrentham, Suff., 45. Wrexham, Denbighs., 179, 180. Wychwood forest, 85. Wye, Kent, 287-296. Wye, valley of the, irregular fields in, 93- 97- Wymondham, Nori., 339-341. Wyre forest, 87. Yard-lands, 2r. See Virgates. Yate, Gloucs., 90, 520. Yorkdiire, 36, 63, 64, 70, 27r, 446, 530, S31; irregular fields in, 103.