THE MERCIAN TYPE OF VILLAGE COMMUNITY.
LAXTON, AN OPEN FIELD PARISH.
Perhaps the best surviving example of an open field parish is that of
Laxton, or Lexington, in Nottinghamshire, about ten miles from Newark
and Southwell. It lies remote from railways and high roads, and is
only to be reached by bye roads. From whatever quarter one approaches
the village, one enters the parish through a gate. The village is in
the centre of the parish, and is surrounded by enclosed fields. Other
enclosures are to be found on the most remote parts of the parish,
in some cases representing, apparently, old woodland which has been
converted into tillage or pasture; in other cases portions of the
arable fields. But nearly half the area of the parish remains in the
form of two great arable fields, and two smaller ones which are treated
as two parts of the third field. The different holdings, whether small
freeholds or farms rented from the Lord of the Manor, who owns nearly
all the parish, consist, in part, of strips of land scattered all over
these fields, in a manner which can best be understood by reference
to the map. Within these arable fields cultivation is not carried on
according to the discretion of the individual farmer, but by strict
rules of great antiquity. In each of the fields a three year course is
rigidly adhered to.
First year, wheat.
Second year, spring corn (_i.e._ barley, oats, peas, beans, vetches,
tares, &c.).
Third year, fallow.
If, therefore, Laxton be visited early in June, the following
description of the appearance of the parish will be found correct. The
traveller passes through the boundary gate. He finds his road leads him
through the “Spring corn” field, which lies open on either side of the
road. A phrase which is continually used by old farmers when attempting
to describe common fields will probably occur to him in this field:
“It is like allotments.” But it is like an allotment field with many
differences.
[Illustration: LAXTON
WEST FIELD AND PART OF MILL FIELD
Map of Laxton showing:
Common Pasture
Farm nᵒ. 1
Farm nᵒ. 2
Approximate Scale 1:9,000]
All the great field is divided up into oblong patches, each patch
growing its own crop, but with no more division or boundary between one
crop and the next than a mere furrow.
If, then, the traveller looks again at a strip of land growing, say,
beans, he will find that this strip consists of one, two, or more
ridges, locally termed “lands.” A “land” in Laxton has a pretty
uniform width of 5½ yards, and a normal length of one furlong; but by
the necessity of the case the length varies considerably. Owing to
this variation in length the various strips of land which make up the
different holdings in the common fields, when their area is expressed
in acres, roods, or poles, seem to have no common measure.
Because the soil of Laxton is a heavy clay it is customary to plough
each “land” every year in the same manner, beginning at the edges, and
turning the sod towards the centre of the “land.” Hence each “land”
forms a long narrow ridge, heaped up in the middle, and the lie of the
“lands” or ridges was at some unknown date so well contrived for the
proper drainage of the land, that it is probable that if the whole of
a field were let to a single farmer, he would still plough so as to
maintain the old ridges.
The same ridges are to be found on the other two fields, one of which
is a stretch of waving wheat; while the third, or fallow field, is
being leisurely ploughed, a number of sheep getting a difficult living
from the thistles and other weeds in the still unploughed portions,
and on the “sicks,” _i.e._ certain grassy parts of the field which are
defined by boundary marks, and are never allowed to be ploughed. In one
extreme corner of the parish is Laxton Heath, a somewhat swampy common
covered with coarse grass. Here, too, sheep are grazed in common,
according to a “stint” somewhat recently determined upon. Before the
stint was agreed to, every commoner had the right of turning out as
many sheep as he could feed in winter, the result being that the common
was overstocked, and the sheep nearly starved. The stint regulates
the number of sheep each commoner may graze upon the common according
to the number he can feed on his other land in the parish. It was not
adopted without opposition on the part of those whose privileges it
restricted.
This brings us to the question, Who are the commoners? There are two
sorts of claim by which a man may be entitled to common rights, and
to a voice in such deliberations as those by which a stint is agreed
to. One is by a holding in the common open fields, the other is by
the occupation of a “toft-head.” A “toft” is not very easy to define.
One may say that it either is, or represents, an ancient house or
cottage in the village; but that immediately suggests the question, How
ancient? It is well known in the village which cottages are “tofts”
and which are not. Those which are, command a rent about £2 a year
higher in consequence. It is to be noted that if the house or cottage
which is the visible sign of “toft-head” be pulled down, and a new one
erected on the same spot, the new house has the same rights attached
to it. One is naturally led to the hypothesis that up to a certain
date[1] all cottages erected in Laxton carried common rights, but that
after that date no new common rights could be created. There are,
therefore, two classes of commoners: the farmers who hold land in the
common fields, and the labourers who occupy the privileged cottages.
A farmer may possess a number of common rights in respect of (1) his
farmhouse, if it be a “toft,” (2) his arable holding, and (3) any toft
cottages he may own or rent and sub-let to labourers, retaining their
common rights. The labourer has but one common right. Each common right
entitles the holder to one vote, and to one share in the division of
the money revenues drawn from the commonable lands, besides the right
of feeding an indefinite number of sheep on the fallow field, and the
regulated number on the common. The money revenue that comes from the
commonable fields is obtained as follows: The grass lands (“sicks”)
in the two common fields which are under crops cannot be grazed upon
conveniently, because any animals would be liable to stray into the
crops. They are, therefore, mown for hay, and the right to mow them
is sold by auction to one of the commoners, and the price realised is
divided. Recently this has worked out at about 14_s._ per common right.
Each commoner also has the right of pasturing animals upon the two
fields that are under crops, directly the harvest has been carried.
[1] The following extract from a sixteenth century writer throws some
light upon this point:
“Another disorder of oppression
aduerte this wone wiche is muche odyous,
A lord geauyn to private affection
lettinge the pooareman an olde rotten howse,
which hathe (to the same) profyttes commodious
its Cloase, and Common, with Lande in the feelde
but noate well heere howe the pooareman is peelde.
“The howse shall hee haue and A gardeyne plott,
but stonde he must to the reperation:
Close, Comon or Londe fallithe none to his lott;
that beste might helpe to his sustentation.
the whoale Rente payethe hee for his habitation,
as though hee dyd thappertenauncis possesse
Such soare oppression neadethe speadye redresse.”
“The Pleasaunt Poesye of Princelie Practise” (1548)
WILLIAM FORREST, Chapter III., 21 & 22
E.E.T.S. Extra Series, XXXII.
We have here the practice of divorcing the cottage from its common
right described as a novelty. The Act of 31 Elizabeth, c. 7, by
prohibiting the letting of cottages without 4 acres of land, in effect
prohibited the letting of a cottage without a common right, as the 4
acres _would_ not be the highly valued Close, and _could_ not, unless
the rights of other villagers were infringed, be waste or common
pasture. Four acres in the common arable field was implied, and this
of course carried a right of common.
The exercise of this right, which appears to be most keenly valued,
as it is found to persist in many parishes after all other traces of
the common field system have died away, obviously opens the door to
quarrels. It is not to be expected that all farmers should finish
carrying their crops on the same day; and the position of the man
who is behind all his neighbours, and so is standing between the
commoners and their right of pasture, is not an enviable one. But a
constitutional system of government exists for the purpose of dealing
with these and other difficulties. A “Foreman of the Fields” and a
“Field Jury” are elected: the field jury settles all disputes between
individuals, while the duties of the foreman include that of issuing
notices to declare when the fields are open for pasturing; on which day
all the gates, by which, as I have previously mentioned, the parish
is entered, must be closed, while all the gates of the farmyards are
thrown open, and a varied crowd of animals winds along the drifts and
spreads over the fields.
It will be noticed that the commonable lands of Laxton include only
arable fields and common pasture. The commonable meadows which the
parish once had, have been partitioned and enclosed at a date beyond
the recollection of the oldest inhabitant. The neighbouring parish of
Eakring still has commonable meadows. In this respect Eakring is a more
perfect example of the open field parish than Laxton, though its common
arable fields have been much more encroached upon; and have, in fact,
been reduced to scattered fragments, so that the rector was unable to
tell me whether there were five, six, or more of them. The villagers,
however, say simply “Three: the wheat field, the bean field, and the
fallow field.” The commonable meadows are, like the common fields, held
in scattered strips intermingled; and are commonable after hay harvest.
The rule in Eakring is that if one man only has any hay left on the
meadows, the other commoners can turn in their cattle and relieve him
of it; but if he can get a neighbour to leave but one haycock also, he
is protected.
The constitution of Eakring differs somewhat from that of Laxton.
There are regularly four toft meetings every year, presided over by
the steward of the lord of the manor, at which all questions relating
to the commonable lands are settled. Further, all toft holders have an
equal right to feed an indefinite number of sheep on the fallow field,
and the other fields when available, but the exercise of the right is
regulated by a species of auction. The number of sheep that can be
pastured with advantage is agreed upon, and since the total number of
sheep which the assembled toft holders desire to put on is sure to
exceed that number, a price to be charged per sheep is by degrees fixed
by mutual bargaining, till the numbers of sheep for which their owners
are willing to pay is reduced to the number that the pasture can bear.
The cottager and toft holder, therefore, who though not holding an acre
of land in the parish, has yet enterprise enough to bid for the right
of keeping a flock of sixty sheep on the common fields, is therefore
heartily welcomed by that section of the toft holders who have no
desire to bid against him, because he forces up the value of their
rights.
A RECENT ENCLOSURE--CASTOR AND AILESWORTH.
Up till 1898 an even better example of an open-field parish could be
seen in Northamptonshire. In that year was completed the enclosure
of Castor and Ailesworth, two hamlets forming part of the parish
of Castor, situated three miles from Peterborough on the road to
Northampton. In 1892, when application was made to the Board of
Agriculture, which now represents the Enclosure Commissioners of the
General Enclosure Act of 1845, there were in the two hamlets, out of
a total area of 4976 acres, 2,425 acres of common arable fields, 815
acres of common pastures and meadows, and 370 acres of commonable
waste, and only about 1300 acres enclosed. In Laxton the commonable
land is less than half the area of the parish. The greater amount of
old enclosure in Laxton has had its effect on the distribution of the
population. There are some, though very few, outlying farmhouses. In
Castor and Ailesworth all the habitations and buildings, except a
watermill and a railway station, are clustered together in the two
hamlets, which form one continuous village. At present very nearly all
the land of Laxton and Eakring is in the ownership of the respective
lords of the two manors; in Castor and Ailesworth the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners are the largest landowners; but nearly as much land is
the property of Earl Fitzwilliam, and there are besides a number of
small landowners. Before enclosure all these properties were intermixed
all over the area of the two hamlets, the two chief properties coming
very frequently in alternate strips.
Though the area of commonable land in Castor was so much greater
than in Laxton, those customs of village communal life which we
have described had retained much less vigour; and to the decay of
the power of harmonious self-government the recent enclosure was
mainly attributable. The customary method of cultivation in Castor
and Ailesworth was a three-field system, but a different three-field
system to that described above. The succession of crops was:--First
year, wheat; second year, barley; third year, a “fallow crop,” or as
locally pronounced, “follow crop.” Each year in the spring the farmers
and toft-holders of Castor, and similarly of Ailesworth, would meet
to decide the crop to be sown on the fallow field. One farmer, who
held the position--though not the title--of “Foreman of the Fields,”
kept a “stint book,” a list of all the villagers owning common rights,
and the number of rights belonging to each. The number of votes that
could be cast by each villager depended upon the number of his common
rights. The fallow crop might be pulse or turnips or other roots or
anything else that seemed advisable; but it was essential to the
_farmers’_ interests that they should agree upon some crop. For a
tradition existed in the village that unless the farmers were agreed
as to the crop to be sown on the fallow field, that field could be
treated as though it really were fallow. It could be pastured on all
the year by all the toft-holders, and any crop which any farmer might
sow would be at the mercy of his neighbours’ cattle and sheep. I could
not find that this had ever happened. On the other hand, the farmers
being agreed about the crop, they could also determine the date when
the fallow field should become commonable.[2] The wheat-field and
barley-field became commonable after harvest; the meadows and pastures
were commonable between August 12th and February 14th.
[2] This is good law. By 13 Geo. III. c. 81 these agreements could be
made by “a three-fourths majority in number and value.” _See_ Chapter
IX.
The reason why the medieval three-field system was retained in Laxton,
but was altered in Castor to an improved three-field system, is to
be found in the nature of the soil. That of Laxton is a heavy clay,
growing wheat of noted quality; that of the Northamptonshire parish
is lighter, in parts very shallow and stony. Another result of the
difference of soil was a different system of ploughing. The Castor
method was that technically known as “Gathering and Splitting,” viz.,
alternately to plough each strip from the margin inwards, turning the
sod inwards, and the reverse way, turning the sod outwards, so that
the general level of the field was not broken into a series of ridges.
In Castor, as in Laxton, no grassy “balk” divided one man’s “land”
from his neighbour’s, the furrow only had to serve as boundary, and
sometimes the boundary was bitterly disputed. Before the enclosure
there was one spot in the common fields where two neighbours kept a
plough each continually, and as fast as one ploughed certain furrows
into his land, the other ploughed them back into his.
Another difficulty occasionally arose when high winds prevailed at
harvest time. The great extent of the open fields, and the slightness
of any opposition to the sweep of the wind, at such times allowed
the corn to be blown from one man’s land, and scattered over his
neighbours’. Indeed it recently happened that one year when peas had
been chosen as the fallow crop, that a storm carried the whole crop to
the hedge bordering the field, and so mixed together in inextricable
confusion the produce belonging to thirty or forty different farmers.
Another source of dispute was one that has been a prolific cause of
trouble in common fields for centuries. Where the extremities of a
series of adjoining “lands” abut on a land belonging to another series
at a right angle, the land so abutted on is termed a “head-land,” and
the occupiers of the lands that abut on it have the right of turning
their ploughs on the headland, and taking the plough from one strip to
another along it. The occupier of the headland therefore has to defer
ploughing it till all his neighbours have finished, and often chafes
at the delay. Recently a farmer in the unenclosed parish of Elmstone
Hardwick, near Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire, attempted to find a
remedy for this inconvenience. He ploughed his headland at the time
that suited his convenience, and then sued his neighbours for trespass
when they turned their ploughs in his land. Needless to say he lost
more by his action than by the trespass.
In Castor quarrelsome farmers were wise enough to avoid the law
courts. Instead, they wrote appealing against their neighbours to
their respective landlords, but the landowners were unable to restore
harmony. The death of a farmer who had won the highest respect of his
neighbours, and who had continually used his great influence to allay
ill-feeling and promote harmony, brought on a state of tension that
gradually became unbearable; and the appointment by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners of a new agent, who could not understand and had no
patience with the peculiarities of common-field farming, led to steps
being taken for enclosure.
The first step necessary was to obtain the agreement of the great
majority of the people interested. The agent in question, assisted
energetically by the leading farmer in Ailesworth, succeeded in doing
this without much difficulty. In 1892, application was made for an
order to the Board of Agriculture, whose inspector reported warmly
commending the project. The simple statement of the farmers with
regard to their farms, _e.g._, “I hold 175 acres in 192 separate
parcels,” would convince him that a change was necessary. The figures
for holdings are not given by the enclosure award, but a summary of
the facts with regard to some of the smaller properties gives the
following:--
The glebe consisted of--
A. R. P.
16 scattered strips of land in Wood Field, area 10 1 16
5 ″ ″ ″ Nether Field, ″ 3 1 12
7 ″ ″ ″ Normangate Field, ″ 4 0 2
33 ″ ″ ″ Mill Field, ″ 20 2 28
34 ″ ″ ″ Thorn Field, ″ 24 2 29
50 ″ ″ ″ Milton Field, ″ 37 0 37
18 ″ ″ ″ four meadows, ″ 10 1 20
2 Lammas closes, ″ 7 2 24
making a total of 165 outlying parcels of land, scattered far and wide
over a parish of five thousand acres in extent, and yet amounting, with
some small closes near the village, only to 118 acres in area. Further--
A. R. P.
Proprietor A owned 17 3 19 in 32 parcels
″ B ″ 3 0 16 ″ 6 ″
″ C ″ 80 1 5 ″ 164 ″
″ D ″ 9 0 18 ″ 8 ″
″ E ″ 2 0 2 ″ 5 ″
″ F ″ 2 3 14 ″ 6 ″
″ G ″ 1 2 10 ″ 5 ″
″ H ″ 2 2 3 ″ 9 ″
″ J ″ 2 1 18 ″ 7 ″
″ K ″ 166 2 24 ″ 217 ″
″ L ″ 13 3 37 ″ 30 ″
Parliamentary enclosure, however, is not to be obtained without
conditions. That reckless disregard of the wider public interests
both of the locality and of the nation at large in the land to be
enclosed of which the administration of the General Enclosure Act from
1845 to 1874 has been accused, has been dispelled by the vigorous and
ably-conducted agitation to which we owe the preservation of Epping
Forest, Hampstead Heath, and many other priceless commons. In the
enclosure of Castor and Ailesworth, in the first place, Ailesworth
Heath, which occupies the highest and most remote corner of the
parish, was excluded from the operation of the Enclosure Act. It is a
wild little common which, beyond feeding a few sheep and furnishing
a quarry, seems to be fit for nothing but picnics and blackberrying.
Situated at the distance of about five miles from Peterborough, which
again stands on the margin of the fen country, it will probably come to
be valued by the townsmen for its unprofitable wildness.
Next, the parish boasts its antiquities, the remains of a part of the
ancient Roman road from London to York, and certain blocks of stone,
locally known as Robin Hood and Little John. The Enclosure Act provides
for the preservation of these.
A bathing place in the River Nen, which bounds the parish on the
south, selected at the most convenient spot, and three recreation
grounds of 6 acres each, and one of 14 acres, are handed over to the
safe keeping of the parish councils of Castor and Ailesworth, besides
four pieces of land, making 42 acres in all, for allotments and field
gardens. The farmers mournfully point out that these 76 acres thus
reserved for the common use and benefit of the villagers are some
of the best land and the most conveniently situated. The recreation
grounds in particular they scorn as foolishness. Possibly, however,
because the village prides itself on its prowess in the football field,
the indignation against this supposed fad of the central government
is mild compared with that expressed by some of the thrifty people of
Upton St. Leonards, near Gloucester, which was being enclosed at the
same time. Here the recreation ground was dubbed by some the “ruination
ground,” enticing as it did the young lads from digging in their
fathers’ allotments to cricket and football, and so subverting the very
foundation of good morals.
Subject to these deductions, the whole of the open commonable lands
and many of the old enclosures, after being surveyed and valued, and
after roads, where necessary, had been diverted or newly set out,
were redistributed among the old proprietors so as to give each his
proportional share, as far as possible in the most convenient manner.
This was both a lengthy and a delicate task, but it was finally
completed in 1898, six years after the matter first came before the
Board of Agriculture. Each several proprietor was then required to
fence his allotment in the manner prescribed by the commissioners who
make the survey and award. The cost of the survey and allotment usually
works out at about £1 per acre; the cost of fencing may be a great deal
more. Though the Parliamentary expenses are now trifling, the total
cost of abolishing the “system of mingle-mangle,” as Carew called it in
1600, in any parish where it still exists, is not to be lightly faced
in times of agricultural depression.