Arable Land

The many advantages of the Open Common Field System have not as far as I know been vigorously put forward by any Cropredy tenants, yet in the 1570's the new landlord seems to have appreciated it. At any point in time the manor court could get together and reshuffle the balance between pasture and arable should that be deemed necessary. He must take into account that the rules they made to work the land had to be by common consent, or else they would not achieve their object. This could of course make further changes difficult and halt any progress until perhaps the next generation took over, although it has already been mentioned that once a balance was altered in favour of milch cows for cheese then new beef rearing tenants would not buy into a lease.

Those who followed the type of farming going on in Cropredy could make a living. Up to twentyfour husbandmen and a few smallholders were farming the same Open Common Fields and surviving. They would try and lease more land when the family was growing, but release it in time for the next generation. It cannot be proved that any one family was allowed to take extra land at the expense of others. Only Hentlowe and R.Howse had five yardlands, but the next generation was not able to do the same, the extra land had gone to others. It took a lot of effort to save up for the next twentyone year lease for each yardland. Once land was enclosed and a farm had groups of fields, the good and bad were not so fairly distributed. How much easier to take on or discard a balanced half yardland parcel of strips according to the size of the household. Also by having strips of land any new tenant could be catered for without too much disturbance to others.

Cropredy husbandmen did not need to adapt to the up and down husbandry system spreading through the country, as already they had found a way to achieve a fairly adequate greensward acreage and the worst leyland within the south arable areas were already kept to an unavoidable minimum. The parish was in a mixed farming area for hundreds of years and the Open Common Field could emphasise arable or pasture by a delicate balancing to suit the husbandmen. Each and every tenant being of similar status into the early seventeenth century. After which a rising number of gentry, and husbandmen becoming yeomen with land elsewhere began to change the makeup of the group of tenants who must see to the day to day life of the town in the absence of a resident vicar or landowner. Could the reason behind their increasing wealth be the expansion of the larger towns demanding more bread coupled with the increase in the price of wheat ?

We pass from the manuring of the land by sheep and the spreading of yard manures, to the cultivation of the soil by ploughing. The team pulling the plough, guided by the ploughman produced the tilth over which the seed would be broadcast by hand. George Dyer-als-Devotion [3] described his "Earable ground" in a terrier of 1669. He was using a word which combined the "ear" from earth with "arare" the plough. Sometimes they would speak of needing five earths to clean the fallow land of weeds, to leave it ready to manure and plant with barley seed [Tusser].

Terriers which have been used to find the distribution of leyland can also reveal how the arable land was distributed amongst the tenants. Different conclusions have been made from the method of rotating the strips, either by Furlongs, Quarters or the two Fields. The following is still very much open to discussion, but a start had to be made somewhere.

The arable land in Cropredy was situated in two large Open Common Fields. In some parishes having two fields did not necessarily mean one year for crop, one year for fallow as it did in Cropredy. Quartering the fields to allow a four year rotation was possible. Some parishes in other counties rotated by Furlongs, but to find out what the neighbouring parishes did in North Oxfordshire we must await their parish studies. Cropredy had already divided the land into Quarters, though they do not provide the solution to the planting of crops. Each field was also divided up into furlongs, and every furlong into strips. Was it possible to discover how a few of the tenant's parcels of land were distributed?

All the tenants lands were scattered over the two fields with their strips usually in separate furlongs. When several half yardland parcels had been leased then some tenants were bound to have more than one strip to a furlong. A half yardland parcel was too small to have a land in every furlong and yet Devotion with two parcels had two or three in a few furlongs and none in others. Had the College reorganised when they took possession of the estate? Once a strip had been allocated it would appear from the series of terriers (1609-1769) to remain constantly belonging to that parcel and place. There are exceptions when tenants did have two strips making up an acre, though when this had occurred is seldom known. Generally it would appear that the only thing to change over the years were the names of the tenants leasing the neighbouring strips, by which the location was identified. Tenants of the same farmstead's follow each other in their leasing of that parcel, and it was thought they could only belong to that property's lease. Some former demesne parcels however had been detached from the A manor farm and these were available for the tenants from both manors. It is possible that even these parcels retained their original collection of strips.

A new leaseholder would need six or more reliable neighbours to show him the two fields, and to help him note down a list of his strips. He must then write up a fair copy and have it witnessed by the townsmen before (if on the B. manor) conveying it to the Brasenose College as part of the tenancy agreement. One badly presented terrier was obviously not acceptable to the Bursar. The tenant of [35] explains:

William Hall wrote the oldest surviving College terrier in 1609 for Springfield's [6] two and a half yardlands. It described the direction of each strip he leased and gave the names of the neighbours farming on both sides of his alloted strips in the south arable field:

"Imprimis three lands above smaleway, Edward Lumberd on the east side and John Pratt on the west side..."[BNC:558] [Lumberd and Pratt being occupiers of farms 14 & 24]. The list went on for a few pages until both the North and South Field's arable and leyland belonging to Hall's five parcels of land had been described.

In 1655 Springfield's neighbours to that particular land were now "Nehemiah Haslewood east and Edmond Pratt on the west side" [BNC:558]. From other records we know that Lumberd's widow had married Nehemiah Haslewood and that they now farmed "Lumberds" [14] next to the blacksmith's. John Pratt [24] had been replaced by his son Edmond on the corner of Church Lane and the High Street. The mention of others in this way has proved very useful in tracing descendants and leaseholders for farms on the A manor which has only one surviving terrier.

The B. manor terriers show that each half yardland parcel had its strips spread evenly between the two fields, except for the manor farm itself, which had several collections of strips called pieces. None of the other tenants on this manor had the privilege of blocks of strips. Was this demesne land belonging to the B manor exchanged when the manor was first split up (p8)? By 1609 the two fields had been halved to give Cropredy four Quarters. Hayway and the Hackthorn in the South Field, Field End and Downland in the North Field. Again we do not know when this took place. It could have been in the 1570's, or in an earlier reorganisation. Without manor rolls the date has to remain a mystery. Other parishes with written accounts of the twelfth or thirteenth centuries had already begun to change from two to three fields, and a few to four. Not all the later Cropredy surveys mention Quarters, for the rent was always based upon the amount of land they had in the North and South Fields as well as the advantages for that particular tenement. The early terriers ignore the Quarters and use the furlongs. A terrier made in 1548 for the A manor demesne land on the South Field of Cropredy included Lamecot, Marsh, Long Marsh, Harble, Nether and Over [Hag]thorn, Rushford, Hanging, Nether and Over Londymer Furlongs as well as Ballard Leys above Hanging Furlong and a few other butts and leys. At that time Marsh and Long Marsh appear to be still mainly arable (Fig.1.5 p19).

Not all parishes appear to have gone from a basic two field to a four Quarter system as Cropredy and neighbours had, though this change did not do away with the North and South Fields in Cropredy. Both terms appear in the later terriers. Keeping to alternate years for planting the North or South Fields was a long established custom and any rotation had to fit into this while it still operated. Why then did they bother to Quarter them? The vicar and others appear to plant all the corn in one field and have the newer crop of peas taking up some of the fallow in the other.

Bourton had also divided their two fields into Quarters. They had a Mill Quarter [near their new windmill on Broadway], Hills Quarter [by the Slack over the Broadway], Langland Quarter [partly between the water mills] and a Swans Quarter [east of Little Good Farm]. The greensward was on the Hill's called the "Upper side" and in Langland on the East Side [Curtesy of Mr B. Cannon of Bourton's farm deeds].

Wardington and Claydon had also changed to Quarters. Was there any reason why parishes in this immediate area should have favoured Quarters? Was it the influence of the Ecclesiastical parish to which they all once belonged, or something to do with the fact that the Bishop's Estate had taken over an even earlier estate which covered a large part of North Oxfordshire? Some other four field systems appear in South Warwickshire, but mostly that county moved to three with other Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire parishes.

One reason why the majority of parishes in the Midlands changed to a three field system was because it was easier to rotate the crops from winter corn to spring corn to fallow. With four Quarters you might expect fallow, barley, peas then wheat. Cropredy hovered between two and four. To change from two to three or more required a soil good enough to stand the extra strain of decreasing the fallow periods.

Cropredy was known to have good agricultural land, but over cultivation without adequate manures may have led to some decrease in harvest loads until more advanced methods arrived. On the other hand some tenants may have been able to sow more bushels to the acre in an attempt to increase the harvest loads. Others, with their team of horses replacing the slower oxen and ploughing more land in a day, may have achieved a weed free tilth with the maximum number of cultivations and so won the race by skill and effort, keeping ahead of the rubbish ever waiting to compete with their crops, and finally bring home good yields from each acre.

The shape of the parish with the land running westwards and northwards from the town made a three part field system impossible. It was well balanced into two fields with the Oxhay in between. Had it taken the place of an earlier estate of scattered farms? Could they have reused former field divisions by turning them into furlongs?

Every part of the two Fields' furlongs followed the direction of the best drainage. An ideal furlong would be 220 yards long and made up of strips shaped in an inverted "S." This came about by the team of oxen pulling over to turn onto the headland at the top of the furlong, before ploughing down to a headland below. 220 yards was a sufficient length for the team to work before turning them onto the heading. Not all the land was suitable for complete furlongs.

The system could have evolved as the Orwins suggest solely out of necessity [Orwin C.S. and C.S. The Open Fields. 1938 Oxford University Press]. The tillers of the soil having but one main consideration, to feed their families and to survive into the following year. They must use the oxen team and their plough to the best advantage. This was seen when the oxen team set out early to the days ploughing. By noon they must return for food and rest if they were to accomplish the same amount the next day. On different soils and slopes a days yoking might cause a slight variation in the size of the piece of "land." In Cropredy two lands equal a "Customary acre." This was larger than the "Standard acre." The ploughman would have toiled over ten miles up and down his "land" before again entering the ox stable.

One half yardlander could not possess a full oxen team of up to eight, so they joined together and several teams would be out ploughing on the same furlong. Tenants had also to do the landlords portion. Once the furlong was harrowed, sown and rolled, with the headlands left as leys or ploughed up, the furlong was closed off. The following plough day the teams would be in their next furlong. Sometime before 1609 their arable strips had become set in the furlongs (no longer being allocated yearly, if this had ever been done in Cropredy).

A furlong width was therefore made up of so many lands all of inverted "S" shaped ridges. The ridge height and width were governed by the type of soil and slope and the need to drain surplus water away. The very first ploughman would have taken a rod and calculated the height and number of ridges to achieve the best result. Between the ridges were "V" shaped furrows made by closing the soil towards each ridge. The water could escape down this "drain." Broadway Furlong on the highest land over marlstone rock is flat but well drained so the ridges were flatter and possibly wider ("Broad" after the name of the roadway, or because lower ridges spread out the amount the plough team could cover in a day, leaving a wider acre cultivated. Hall [6] had "broad acres" in this furlong).

One important question arises. Did Cropredy have baulks between the strips? There is no documentary evidence and none on the ground, yet Wardington did (p199). The vicar wrote in 1671 that Wardington "are to leave their balks in the field 3 foot wide, wch they doe not and / their hades 9 foot wide" [M.S. dd par Cropredy c25 p48v]. This would alter the width of two lands making up an acre allowing them only 30' per strip.

The method of setting out the ploughed ridge and furrows is so important to the whole foundation of the Open Common Field system that it needs someone far more competent to do so than myself. Bob Copper wrote in A Song for Every Season [William Heineman Ltd 1971 p97]

"Luke used to cut the goad to a length of 8' 3" so that he could measure and mark out the land for ploughing. The old single -furrow plough turned a furrow approximately nine inches wide so that in a "went"- which was once up the field and back again- they would plough eighteen inches. Two wents covered a yard and eleven wents a rod- that is five and a half yards, which was twice the length of the goad. So if, for instance, your field was forty rod long you had to plough four rods wide to make up the acre and four rods could be measured by marking out eight goad-lengths. Every man had to plough an acre a day so that would mean, for example, forty-four wents on a field forty rod or 220 yards long. The ploughman ...had to trudge over ten miles behind his plough every day."

Every year the first furrow was ploughed each time on the crest of the old ridge. First opening the top by turning the slice to the right and then turning back down the same cut to deepen it so that again the slice fell to the ploughman's right, but of course away from the first cut. The third furrow slice was made by coming back up the same side so that the slice half closed the opening and the fourth slice on the way down shut the top of the ridge and made sure that the soil beneath was cultivated. The plough then continuing round a set number of times until the plough came to the water furrow. Having closed the ridge on both sides the next ridge was begun.

The tenants' strips in each of the furlongs were called in Cropredy "Ridges" or "Lands". In February 1579 Johan Robin's [26] winter corne had been sown on sixteen "redges". In December 1603 the same farm had twenty "lands of maslen sowed in the ffeild worth" £5. In places the lie of a hill prevented a long furlong, or some was left over and the soil was set out in shorter strips called Butts. The husbandmen used the same terms when setting out their terriers, describing a strip as "a butt, a land, a yerd or an aker" according to size. The assessers for the inventories from 1570 to 1640, being tenants, naturally use the same land divisions when referring to the planted crops. The vicar in his accounts had similar values, but a different spelling, word or pronunciation, calling them "eards," half an acre/ land, "yerd," or acre [c25/2 f3].

These are only average measurements, for over the years a strip's boundary might loose, or gain a fraction from a neighbouring strip with no landshares between them. Water played a part in removing soil from strips and the upper headlands by taking it down the furrows to the bottom headland. The strips would gradually increase or diminish and the original size of a butt or land could change, though surveying the land was only just being done on the bigger estates. Even so the division of land had to have a name and an approximate customary measurement. The type of soil was the cause of many "small" lands on the clay areas.

Higher up on better drained soil a land could, if space allowed, be nearer a customary half acre or more.

Strips or plots smaller than a rood were usually only found in the town, the best examples came in the Enclosure Award, for this had every property's acres, roods or perches set out. A cottager's town site might for example measure thirtytwo perches as the sixteenth century Edmund Tanner's [39] plot did in 1775.

Parish measurements vary in the size of the acre from the amount the team could do on heavy soils compared with light land. The problem is also increased by all communities using the same words, but giving them different values. The "yardland" is a prime example of this.

In Leicestershire W.G.Hoskins found that "A land was roughly equivalent to a quarter of an acre" [ Provincial England. 1965 p156]. Cropredy's quarter acre was called a butt while half an acre was a land. Two lands were approximately 4 poles in width and 40 poles in length [22 x 220 yards or 1 x 10 chains] and can still be seen in some other parishes in Britain where single acres exist within early enclosure hedges. There are still hundreds left, but yearly more loose their boundaries and few have been researched on the ground. It was not surprising that these acres varied in size. On the flat Open Field Vile at Rhossili the customary acre is much larger than a standard acre. In marked contrast to the open land on the Vile there is an enclosed field called Top Mead equal to 0.95 of a standard acre. This is 4 poles in width and nearly 40 in length. With straight banks it may early have been made into a meadow with a stream along one side. At Tyrhos farm in Aberarth, Ceredigion, another early enclosed field with two inverted "S" shaped hedge banks, which was two lands in width, measured 1.27 standard acres. The surrounding land may have been cultivated since a ceremonial Neolithic axe was lost by the spring at the head of the stream. The means by which we measure land and building go back in time to man's need to divide up areas and construct some dwellings.

The English rod or pole measures 16 feet 6 inches. It has been suggested that this measurement had been in use for many centuries. At least as long as the first cultivation of the land with the aid of a beast. Did it lengthen as the size of feet increased for the approximate length was found by placing sixteen men's feet in a straight line? The resulting pole or rod was to later span across four oxen. It also became the measure for the ox stables and ploughman's house. The rod could be used in the construction of ground plans for any building. The land and buildings were not haphazardly set out, but calculated into units. It was the same with the whole framework of agricultural processes. Their rod was an essential tool to work out the size of the carts. The oxen's goad being half the length of the rod for the setting out the ploughman's ridges and furrows as Luke did. The rod was then required when a man's strips were measured and became an essential tool for the new surveyor's working for the landlords.

Strips could still be found on the ground in some parts of Cropredy parish. Aerial photographs showed how hedges had been planted over them. A few were Middle hedges much older than those of the Later post-enclosure hedges. Two areas were explored from the public footpath and with permission round the edges of each field.

Little Rushford's strips in the South Field ran northwards down towards Church Piece (Fig. 14.4). Two of the prominent ridges measured a chain from water furrow to water furrow. The ridges were high and the width here was thirtythree feet from furrow to furrow. The whole of Little Rushford measured six chains in width, but due to a severe slope at the north end varied from five to seven chains in length. Little Rushford had been taken out of the larger Rushford Furlong.

The second area taken from the South Oxhay was called Bretch. It had only a slight drainage slope. We can tell this was much later in its formation because it was taken piecemeal from the old south Oxhay, but it was again disturbed at another reorganisation by the realignment of the brook which then cut across the south end of the ridges, instead of having a heading -cum-driftway alongside the old meandering brook (p19 & Fig.20.4 on p299). Bretch had two ridges to the chain so this also had two lands to the acre if ten chains in length. The ridges were expected to be wider and flatter than Rushford's, but again measured thirtythree feet from furrow to furrow, making them half a chain per ridge. Bretch was one of those areas to acquire Middle hedges planted when reverting to pasture land and so fossilising for over three hundred years the eighteen ridges found across nine chains. The plough has since returned.

Not all the Bretch was returned to pasture for some (now called Little Church at the east end of Church Piece) continued to be called Bretch in the terriers. Church Piece itself was kept under the plough. At the eastern end of Bretch in Marsh Furlong some former arable was kept as leyland shooting into Honey Pleck. The direction of all the Bretch strips mentioned in the terriers was confirmed on the ground and by Mr P Baker's aerial photographs taken in August 1973.

The acre continued to be used for all calculations, from the quantities of manure ideally to be set out in heaps from a muck cart and then spread, to the exact quantities of seed necessary for sowing. Was it possible to find out the number of bushels sown per acre in Cropredy? The vicar like all the farmers knew this as it would be common knowledge, but difficult to discover now. Each year before bringing in the harvest, he would walk around his crop and know from past experience how many loads of corn he hoped to get per acre. The vicar knew how much his cart load, or "gate," would bring in. The volumes had been worked out long ago, but nowhere does he record the number of wheat sheaves the cart could hold, the amount of loose or sheaved barley, or the volume of a peas "gate." The vicar calculating the quantity these would hopefully thresh out to on an average year, would plan his storage accordingly. He brought his loads into the barn, which had been built with the known average yield per yardland, for the corn must be kept under the barn's thatch, with ideally only the peas in the rickyard. Everything had to be as organised as possible. Abiding by customs and regulations may have seemed inhibiting, but they worked to a set pattern keyed into the lands, carts, and their barns, providing all the necessary skills were diligently applied. If some failed to obey the customs then bye-laws were made at the manor court and fines inflicted on those who by their negligence disrupted other tenant's husbandry. The planting and stock rules, the care of the headlands, the communal hedges and ditches needed attention at the correct time, or else pay a fine. Everyone was obliged to work without infringing upon another man's rights. Failure was bad enough from outside causes, such as a run of bad harvests, but careless farming soon spelt ruin on such thin margins.

A sheep's worst enemy is another sheep, yet they cannot often survive on their own away from the flock. A tenant causing trouble in Open Common Field farming upset his neighbours, which he could ill afford to do when the system only worked if the tenants farmed together. It may be that strangers were not welcome in case they disagreed with the system, and landlords might write to their bailiff to "Pray harken out a good gentele Tenant" known to everyone before they took up the lease, except perhaps for a gentleman who would employ local men. The main branch of each husbandman's family stayed as long as possible and certainly longer than other occupations, until either the line died out, or they were no longer allowed to renew the lease. In 1683 the Cropredy bailiff for the A manor was told "you must use some sharpness/ Else no good will be done with these tenants" [Add. MSS 71960 p97] when pushing for overdue and back rents in difficult times, and at the end of their long lease.

Appraisers listing the deceased man's goods were well able to appreciate the value of the tilth, sown acres and harvested corn. If each yardland had a set crop pattern then the crop value was easily arrived at. Every farmer would be well aware of their neighbours' ability and farming skills, and the value of the crop in the market.

The survival of Thomas Holloway's rare folios form the basis for a closer look at the remains of the arable part of the farming system in Cropredy, though his farm accounts give rise to many more questions than answers. Five of these will be looked at in the next section using the available sources and regretting the lack of manorial court records which had put together the Open Common Field management customs, rules and fines.

The yardland is a unit of land in the Open Common Field, it is not a definite number of acres. A yardland cannot have a fixed acreage, being made up of two halfyardland parcels of strips containing good and indifferent soils. Originally one halfyardland ought to have been able to produce the required crop with sufficient stock to support the tenant and his family. An increase in population had to reduce the stock and increase the crops. Later still most needed two half yardland parcels to rear a family and pay the rent unless they had a craft as well.

In 1754 a survey using standard acres was made for the B. manor properties. The old customary acres had been on the generous side. This was to the disadvantage of the tenant, whose rent was in some instances, but not all, now increased to the new higher acreage level. Strangely the main increases came in the meadowland, but there were other irregularities which had grown up over the centuries. We shall see how the parcels of half yardlands differed in size. The arable and greensward acres varied with every parcel, though usually keeping the correct balance. From five of the B. manor properties a diagram was made to show the average amount of arable and leyland they had per yardland (Fig.20.3.p296). The College let ten and a half yardlands and the Average yardland from their total acreage was twentyone acres three roods for arable and ten acres two roods for greensward which included their meadow land, making an average of thirtytwo acres one rood per yardland. Only the meads were fixed at an acre per yardland, except for the two manor farms which had extra meadows.

There is a figure given in the Enclosure Award of the number of acres in Cropredy. The 1,697 acres included the roads, town and old enclosures. Divided by fiftysix this gave a yardland of thirtytwo acres one rood which was the same as the average from the B manor's ten yardlands, though some lost out from the acres taken up by the roads.

The North Field being let on the B. manor at 10 shillings an acre was obviously better land than the South Field at only 4 shillings per acre. Another reason for inequality of acreage totals may be the fact that a balance of lands for rotation in each of the Quarters was more important than exact yardlands size. Using the survey of 1754 for the standard acreage leased to that tenant, and adding the name of the former 1614 tenant plus our site number, it can be shown how many acres belonged to their yardlands:

The above acreages for the different farms show how they varied from under twentyseven acres to fortyone acres for one yardland. Devotion's [3] was in effect a three quarter yardland and Rede's [33] had nearly a quarter extra. Hentlowe's [35] had more than the average acreage. Springfield [6] had the right arable but was found upon examination to be short of 2a 3r of greensward per yardland.

Each yardland divided the three parts of their land between the North and the South Fields. One arable third in the North Field, another in the South Field, and a third of greensward split between the two. From the first terrier of 1609 right up to 1775 the distribution of land remained constant. The small yardlands were basically unchanged by the 1754 appraisal, but it did affect the larger farms:

Arable: .........................Pre 1609 to 1753: ..........................................1754:

The slight differences between the two fields was not impossible to cope with. The Manor farm [8] on their four yardlands had the correct amount of greensward when the meads were added in, but the distribution of land for this farm had been changed and their strips gathered into pieces, probably at the expense of the other B manor tenants. They had an extra sixteen acres in the North Field which upset the balance. This could be any one of their three pieces, all of which were on the best land. Townhill Piece consisted of a group of thirtytwo lands equal to 16a, and was the one most likely to be the bailiff's perk being close to the town. The farm's other four "pieces" were found to be one to each Quarter with common baulks or a Highway on both sides, so that they were in effect self contained lots, though not enclosed. Their land when fallow had to be grazed by the whole herd or flock. The four pieces were found firstly in the Downland Quarter of the North Field as thirtyfour "Rudges" in Oathill Piece. The second in Field End Quarter had nineteen lands in Sarewell Furlong. In the South Field there were sixteen lands (later with another strip added) in Church Piece part of the Hayway Quarter, and another twentytwo lands in Beyond Broadway Furlong, in the Hackthorn Quarter. There were for this farm many advantages to attract a good tenant, but he must still abide by the manorial rules. One disadvantage was the lack of the newly enclosed leyland, though the aftermath on his own meadows would help his stock enormously and they had a piece in North Oxhay which could have been enclosed for grazing, but we do not know its quality as a pasture (p205).

If all the sixteen acres of an average parcel of half a yardland had been left as arable it would have allowed the land to be divided into units of four. These could fit into any rotation, be it eight in each Open Common Field or four in each Quarter, down to two acres made up of eight roods, or four lands. By 1575 every average parcel had a third in pasture equal to two and a half acres, leaving just over five and a half arable acres in each field. These were difficult figures to balance. At the same time the husbandmen wished to grow wheat on the Barley field and had started to use part of the Fallow field to grow some peas. This was possible as the peas crop was beneficial to the corn which followed. In some inventories it was discovered they planted peas to the same acreage as wheat, reducing the fallow acreage resting for next year's barley. This would be fairly easy to organise if their arable was still in multiples of four, but how did they rotate land on half yardlands when their portion of the Barley field was for example eleven lands? How much barley, wheat and peas could be grown and still make sure that a strict rotation was possible, presuming the manor court did specify the rotation? Secondly how to accommodate all the farmer's wheat or peas in one or more furlongs? The Manor Court might declare a particular furlong for peas, but would Jo Blogs have a land in there? One year they might have the furlongs in Hackthorn for peas and in the third year use Hayway, taking advantage of the Quartering. As they seldom planted half barley and half wheat this was too simple. Barley was still the main corn crop. When barley first had to give up some land for wheat, one acre of wheat to four and a half of barley was a possible sowing.That is two lands of wheat to nine of barley. We will come back to this problem (p306).

On some very wet autumn's the wheat and rye may never be sown and extra barley must be planted in spring. One recorded year was 1574 when the weather was so bad the rye could not be planted in the autumn and the husbandmen in Myddle, Shropshire, left the land fallow to be planted the following spring with barley. [Hey D. An English Rural Community: Myddle under the Tudor and Stuarts. Leicester U.P. 1974, p49].

By the 1570's if there was still a need to take out more strips per parcel for leyland then it was reasonable to propose taking a butt from each Quarter, or a land, and reworking out the rotation, whatever that was based on. Any yardland with extra acres could have more barley and wheat, provided it could be fitted in. Those on "small" or "large" yardlands had to work out where to reduce or add to each Quarter to get as good a balance as possible. Although this balance appears to be definitely worked out by Quarters, it was not sown exactly by them. It would seem reasonable to presume that because they had Quarters, they must have been important in achieving the rotation correctly to provide the maximum gain from the fallowing? The earliest will reference to the Quarters came when John Truss made one on the 22nd of May 1632. He apparently had corn in Oland Quarter which was otherwise called the Downland Quarter.

From the terriers it was possible to locate in the North and South Fields where some of the B manor yardlanders had their butts, lands, yerds and acres, so it was realised they could be used to show how fairly their lands were distributed and help with the problem of how the farmers were able to balance their crops within the system. Also to speculate on their possible rotations.

The five main B. manor farms were looked at again and divided up into half yardland parcels. The fact that the land was in butts, lands, and acres all parts of the same unit system of four made the possible combinations fairly easy for the farmer to arrange, providing they had strips in the right furlongs. Average half yardland parcels were worked out hoping to show how much the tenants with more acres per yardland and those with less, had in their Quarters for each parcel and to see if it was possible to rotate them. It will be noted how perfect Springfield's [6] looks. Each column represents one half yardland parcel:

Quarter	Devotion [3]	Springfield [6]	B.N.Manor [8]	Rede[32]	Hentlowe [34]
Hayway	2a......2a.1r	3a.....3a	2a 2r.....2a.2r	3a......3a.1r	3a 1r.....3a.1r
Hackthorn	2a......1a.3r	3a.....3a	2a 2r.....2a 3r	2a 1r..3a	2a 2r.....2a 3r
Field End	2a 1r..2a 1r	3a.....3a	2a 3r.....2a 3r	3a 2r..3a 1r	2a 2r.....2a 2r
Downland	2a......1a 3r	3a.....3a	2a 2r.....2a 3r	3a 1r..3a 2r	2a 3r.....2a 3r

Page 299

Three of the four Quarters, Hayway, Hackthorn and Downland were about the same size, but Field End was at least fifty arable acres short, though our sample does not show this. A few acres had been taken from Field End to increase the New Pool. This was perhaps compensated for by having fewer leylands amongst the furlongs. Without a complete terrier, or map of each Quarter and an intimate knowledge of the land, before it was extensively drained and limed, we cannot recreate the condition and former quality of each half acre strip and so discover how it was organised to achieve a fair distribution of good soil. The poorer, difficult or most distant arable land, once the Quarter system began to operate, would be turned back to leyland. Advantage had always been taken of all pieces of land too small to plough, for the terriers mention leyland such as odd shaped "sydlyngs" which had become permanent pasture. Church Piece had a "sydyng" by the brook which was not a heading but ran alongside the plough strips (ridge and furrows) and was used for the West Meadow Way (Fig.20.4).

In passing it was noticed that some of the furlongs gradually change their name as the seventeenth century advances into the eighteenth. This changing of furlong names confuses the reading of Springfield's series. On this farm they do change some strips, and leave some out in the middle of the series. It was thought to be an error during a change in tenancy. Or else this error was caused by being a transcript of earlier ones and someone had accidently left out a section. The final terriers revert to the old distribution.

The other available evidence for arable land came in inventories, but again these were only of use if the farmer had died suddenly in full possession of his farm. Either with the winter crops sown, for partial information, or all the crops sown, or just harvested, when they were at their most informative. For inventories taken in between times the wheat, barley and peas would have been threshed, malted or partly sown and the quantities in the barn would not reflect the farmer's total crop. This narrowed the useful inventories down to a handful.

Two Brasenose college farms will be looked at to find the distribution of their land and their crops, Hall's of Springfield [6] without the help of an inventory and Devotion's [3] using one. These can be compared with Tom's a tenant on the A. manor [15].

Devotion's farm was on the east side of the Long Causeway. Their one yardland was described in a set of terriers which had remained constant over the years. One made by a later tenant Wilkes in 1755 [BNC:552] showed just how the arable from the two parcels taken together were divided between the Quarters:

Devotion's farm had, we presume, in the days of just North and South Fields seventeen pieces amounting to 8 acres of land in each Field. We might imagine the Devotions planting their main corn crop on an "uneven" year, like 1613, in the South Field for the vicar writes "the corne towards Borton that yere" [c25/2 f4], or on the "even" years in the North Field when the barley tilth was towards Clattercote. Because of the inventories we can again check up on Devotions in May 1631 when Thomas died while still farming, but remembering the winter wheat and rye were planted the previous October and November 1630 and was therefore an "even" year, although not all the peas, oats and barley had been sown before the even year ended on the 25th March 1630/31. The tilth therefore was towards Clattercote. When Devotion's were appraised in May their lands had been sown as follows:

This produced more questions than answers. Why was he not containing his crops strictly to the Quarters? How had he distributed his seeds to gain this complicated puzzle? If he did this then so must other husbandmen. Can we presume that the code of sowing was therefore not rigid, that there was room for some individual juggling within the customs? Not so, for after searching more inventories it was found he was following a set sowing per yardland size.

What are the facts? The inventory says he had planted sixteen lands and nine butts, leaving twelve lands fallow, although all his spring sown barley, peas and oats would fit neatly into the Field End and Downland strips, this was not the practice. Devotion had apparently to keep the winter wheat in the barley field and sow the peas in the fallow field. Yet the barley field would not be sown until spring and till then was it not used as fallow? Was this a reason to divide the two Fields into Quarters setting one to wheat and rye the other resting until the last ploughing.

In the autumn Devotion had planted four lands of wheat which would include some rye (as the vicar's did), in one Winter Quarter of the North Field. Depending upon which Quarter was being used for wheat he would have 1a 3r, if the wheat was in Downland, or 2a 2r if in Field End left for his spring sowing of 6 acres of barley . After planting the whole of the barley Quarter in spring, they then used up the unsown lands in the wheat Quarter, for the rest of the barley. The wheat and barley following the peas and fallow land of the previous year. He had sufficient room to cater for the corn of "all sorts" in the North Field except for the horse's oats, which being a "new" corn had to go with the peas. In the South Field that year his Peas Quarter had only 3 roods of oats and 6 roods of peas leaving the remainder as extra fallow. Over the years the only way that more crops could be grown to increase the feed for the stock was to reduce the fallow. Peas was the first step and by 1700 Cropredy had added vetches. Root crops were eventually to reduce or replace the fallow. Peas took up about a hundred and fiftysix acres a year and if vetches took the same and extra roots were added then the yearly produce would grow and would finally be able, within the Open Common Field system, to feed more stock and people per yardland. In some areas which had a thinner soil layer this would not have been possible as the ground had more need of a fallow period.

In 1534 Fitzherbert mentioned the rotation of crops "in some places they sowe theyr wheate uppon theyr pees stubble... and that is used where they make falowe in a fyelde every fourthe yere." We have presumed that Devotion followed fallow by barley then peas, wheat and fallow again, as in Fitzherbert's time.

As crops did not fit the Quarters they could not be perfectly rotated. Cropredy may have continued to keep the winter and spring corn in one field, planting 20% wheat and rye and 60% barley on that year's tilth and putting the last 20%, peas, on the fallow.

As the climate does not always favour good wheat bread which would keep and not go mouldy, wheat was grown more as a gamble, which if it did well paid the rent. Husbandmen who could afford it had some wheat mixed with rye for their bread rather than a flat all barley loaf, or a peas and barley mixture, and they continued to run the risk, and planted wheat.

On the uneven year following the burial of Thomas Devotion his widow and son would be planting their corn towards Bourton. The barley needed the best tilth possible and so was following the fallow. To get a good tilth and knock the weeds back Tusser recommended four ploughings of the fallow. First fallow ploughing in April, weather permitting, a shallow one in May before the possible dry weather set in, so that weeds were all buried before they seeded. In July another ploughing was necessary to keep farming in front of the rubbish, and if time a fourth. Eventually he would be planting the following spring when the manure had been ploughed in, the tilth harrowed, but waiting until the soil was warm enough to germinate the barley before sowing. If Devotion's son followed a third of his father's barley with peas he would sow them with the other tenants in whichever Furlong the rotation had come to, for example in Deep Furrow which was in Field End Quarter. Devotion had from his two parcels making up his yardland three separate lands in Deep Furrow which left the whole of his Downland Quarter fallow with the rest (not taken up by peas) in Field End.

Tenants must have set aside specified furlongs for each crop. This idea can be explained by drawing out a chart, for when it was worked out land by land it was found Devotion had about eight groups of strips which could be rotated. Each Quarter having two groups possibly one from each half yardland parcel. Had there been a limited amount of interchange of the lands? Originally one half parcel would not have three lands in one furlong, but two at the most. For convenience they would work out the best arrangement to suit the rotation to make sure that each section was fallowed at least three times every eight years. Or had Devotion been able to keep the two parcels separate rotating each every four years? Once set the rotation drove round and round in the same order. By 1600 if a husbandman had acquired other strips in an extra parcel he could not shuffle them now if two strips appeared in one furlong for the strips were permanently set, or "known," and no longer distributed by "lot" (p213). A situation where a farm had had a steady two yardlands since before the arable "lots" changed to "known" might have adjacent strips in a furlong, or even a piece which could mean that there had been an opportunity to exchange after the last drawing of "lots," or when the estate changed hands. Those who acquired the lease of a half yardland parcel over and above the farm's usual acreage would have the new land scattered and unrelated to their permanent land. Later the extra parcel might go to another husbandman. This shows up in terriers where most strips are isolated, but occasionally two or more strips lie together, like those distributed after the hedging of the Broadway, or from different parcels and sometimes a separate strip appears in the same furlong, but not adjacent. This meant parcels kept their strips as it was not practical to exchange lands for this upset the system. Every tenant knew who had what in the region of their strips, which was essential if the Open Common Fields were to function without paperwork. Even when terriers were demanded by the landlords, it was safer to keep the distribution of lands the same, so that everyone knew to which farmstead the land belonged.

If a Peas crop is followed alternately in the South and the North Field then it will be noticed how it could be sown by moving down one each even year to a new land and then down every odd year to cover every sowing season for eight years before returning again to the first land. In Chapter 14 (Figs: 14.3,14.4,14.5) there are maps showing the positions of the furlongs in the North and South Fields.

Devotion's			E	O	E	O	E	O	E	O
SOUTH FIELD		Total	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Hayway Quarter
i) Broadway	3 lands
...Preen	1 land	2a 1r	P	W	F	B	F	B	F	B
...Copthorn	1 butt
ii)Southcroft	3 lands
..Landimore	1 land	2a	F	B	P	W	F	B	F	B

Devotion's			E	O	E	O	E	O	E	O
SOUTH FIELD			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Hackthorn Quarter
i) Rushford	1 butt
...Nether Foxhole	1 land
...Upper Foxhole	2 lands	1a 3r	F	B	F	B	P	W	F	B
ii)Far Broadway	2 lands
...Upper Windmill	2 lands	2a	F	B	F	B	F	B	P	W
NORTH FIELD
Downland Quarter
i)Upper Oland	3 lands
...Nether Oland	1 butt	1a 3r	W	F	B	F	B	F	B	P
ii)Nether Oland	2 lands
...Further Oland	2 lands	2a	B	P	W	F	B	F	B	F
Field End Quarter
i)Deep Furrow	3 lands
...Horsehill	1 land
...Field End	1 butt	2a 1r	B	F	B	P	W	F	B	F
ii)Shooting Forthway	2 lands
...Catsbrain	1 land
	1 yerd	2a 1r	B	F	B	F	B	P	W	F

This diagram shows a possible cropping rotation on Devotion's [3] Farm over eight years. The arable was 16 acres 1 rood and the greensward which was definitely not rotated with it, was in separate permanent leys equal to ten acres [BNC:terrier 552. 1755]. Yet this seems a long method as rotations were generally confined to four or six years not eight. What other rotations were possible?

There is another way of looking at the division of land in the furlongs. Hall's at Springfield's [6] was checked as their land was the nearest in size to the Revd Holloway's and can be used to help unravel the vicar's farm accounts better, for in those lie the greatest amount of information for Cropredy. Springfield had two and a half yardlands which were made up of five parcels. The vicar already had three quarters of a yardland, something like Devotions in size perhaps plus two yardlands from other farmers in the town.

William Hall [6] was the tenant of 75 acres 2 roods. He wrote them all down for a terrier in 1609 [BNC:558] giving the size and direction of each strip and adding both the neighbouring tenants (p288) (Later terriers mentioned only one neighbour). "An aker on Windmill hill Thomas Devotion [3] next on both sides. A land on the same furlong William Lilly [29] next on the eastside and Thomas Howse [28] on the west side" [Our site numbers]. The land here was being ploughed from north to south. This sloped down towards the West Meadow Way/ Hayway track leading up to Hillington Cross at the head of the valley.

After checking all Hall's land it was found that each parcel had kept a balance of lands and could be readily planted with crops in rotation. What the diagram on page 304 and 305 cannot do is show the positions in the furlong and what advantages or disadvantages they actually had. All the lands are grouped together for the chart. As Springfield had five parcels many furlongs had several strips, but are written out in butts equal to a quarter of each acre or one rood (r), and half a land..

Penny furlong and Jeyholes were alternate names for two of the furlongs on the homeward side of Broadway. In Broadway William had four lands and six acres giving a flat piece taken from the verge. Chapter 14 has maps showing the position of the furlongs and (Fig. 20.5) shows a reconstruction plan of Springfield Farm [6].

........................................................Estimated Distribution of Parcels

SOUTH FIELD
	Total	1	2	3	4	5
In Hayway Quarter
Smaleway	3 lands	2r		2r	2r
Abwell	1 aker					4r
Bretch	1 aker		4r
Penny	1 aker	4r
	1 yerd			3r
Illington	4 lands	2r	2r		2r	2r
Jeyhol	1 yerd			3r
Way	1 yerd	3r
Copthorn	2 akers				4r	4r
	4 lands	2r	2r		2r	2r
Preen	2 akers		4r	4r
	1 land				2r
	Total	3a 1r	3a	3a	3a	3a	=15a 1r
In Hackthorn Quarter
Windmill	3 akers	4r	4r	4r
	6 lands	2r	2r	2r	4r	2r
Foxholes	4 lands	2r	2r	2r		2r
Broadway	4 lands	2r	2r			4r
	6 akers	4r	4r	4r	8r	4r
	Total	3a 2r	3a 2r	3a	3a	3a	=16a
NORTH FIELD
Downland Quarter
Townhill	6 lands	4r	2r	2r	2r	2r
Fennylake	5 butts	1r	1r	1r	1r	1r
Oland	6 lands	2r	2r	2r	2r	4r
Anismore	5 lands	2r	2r	2r	2r	2r
Binfurlong	3 lands	2r	2r		2r
	1 butt			1r
Deep Furrow	3 lands		2r		2r	2r
Shooting Forthway	1 land	2r
	1 aker			4r
	Total	3a	3a	3a....	2a 3r	2a 3r	=14a 2r

	Total	1	2	3	4	5
Field End Quarter
Binn up	3 lands	2r	2r	2r
Overberrin	6 lands	2r	2r	2r	2r	4r
	1 aker				3r
Ramsbalke	3 lands	2r	2r	2r
Horsehill	4 akers		4r	4r	4r	4r
Catsbrain	2 akers	4r				4r
Newpoole	1 yerd				3r
	2 lands		2r	2r
	Total	2a 2r	3a....	3a....	3a....	3a....	=14a 2r
						Total	=60a 1r

As farms had been merged together they had grown to this size permanently. If Springfield or other farms required extra land an application to the bailiff on the A manor was made to try and secure another lease, or take on one of his neighbours. Sometimes a husbandman must sublet a yardland to another townsman and use the rent to pay off legacies, or perhaps the grandfather was bringing up his deceased son's family and he could no longer farm all the land himself. Grandfather French [4] had sublet one yardland to the Holloways [21], until his grandson was old enough, or free from paying out legacies and able to farm it. If no extra parcels could be found they made do with what they had, but the wealthier began to purchase land in other parishes.

What other opportunities did they have within the system? In the early seventeenth century Berkshire farmers sent wheat to London. To do this they must have increased their wheat at the expense of barley. Could Cropredy farmers do the same? Was there any other means beside packhorse to the navigable part of the river Cherwell and Thames? Or was the distance prohibitive? We shall see the vicar planted more than others, so were the cropping quotas capable of being stretched?

If Springfield used the same eight year rotation that Devotion might have done, what quantities was he able to plant? Devotion had but 2a per half yardland parcel for each Quarter, but Springfield was fortunate and had nearly 3a per Quarter for each half yardland, giving him an average total of 15 acres. Devotion planted only half his wheat Quarter and it was possible for the following to be sown using the two farms as a guide:

	0.5 Yardland	1 Yardland	2 Yardlands	2.5 Yardlands
Devotion [3]	1a Wheat	2a Wheat
	3a Barley	6a Barley
Springfield [6]	1a 2r Wheat	3a Wheat	6a Wheat	7a 2r Wheat
	4a 2r Barley	9a Barley	18a Barley	22a 2r Barley

Was Springfield able to alter the seven and a half acres of wheat and twentytwo and a half of barley to ten wheat and twenty barley? If peas and wheat still kept the same acreage as each other then the peas/oats could go to ten and the fallow drop with the barley to twenty.

An attempt was made to find the minimum amount of winter corn sown on those farms, whose information has been kept, by adding their sowings and dividing their yardland arable by eight.

		Wheat	Barley	Peas/Oats	Fallow	Ydlands.
[3]	Devotion	2a	6a	2a	6a	1 small
[6]	Springfield	7a 2r	22a 2r	7a 2r	22a 1r	2.5
[8]	B Manor	10+*	31a+	10a+	31a+	4
[32]	Rede	3a	8a 2r	3a 2r	10a	1 large
[35]	Hentlowe	6a 2r	17a	5a**	16a	2
[15]	Toms 1696	10a	16a 2r	10a	16a 2r	2.5
[21]	Vicar 1613	12a	20a 3r	12a 1r	20a 2r	2.5 ***

Tom's inventory of 1696 was used to study the wheat quantities, to compare the increase in wheat, to see if the vicar was as progressive in his farming as others of his era and to compare them with Toms eighty years later.

Fortunately the inventories were made by local men who had the state of the market at their finger tips. They knew the worth of the sown crops in the field, the current price of wheat, barley and peas and when to sell their malt. Some did not sell, unless desperate, until May the following year when the market prices rose. If however there was a shortage they may be forced into selling by the authorities. The vicar's dates for selling corn are given below.

William Toms was a husbandman farming two and a half yardlands on the A manor. His family had been living on the Green since at least 1590 when his father took over from Somerfords, but the family had been in Cropredy since before the registers began in 1538. William was at least the fifth generation and his descendants continued to farm well into the last century, when Dyer Toms used to take a pride in having a huge row of ricks stretching down Hill Farm driveway from the Oxhay Road crab tree on the boundary to the threshing barn. A sign to others that he need not thresh at once to pay the Michaelmas rent. In 1696 William had begun to have wheat ricks out behind his farm on the Green although most of the town's wheat was still stored in barns. In April that year he had £11 of wheat left in a rick. Having grown more than his barn was built to store they had no alternative but to make use of the rickyard.

Some of William's barley had been converted into malt and they valued this at £12-15s. If the local price was about 25s-6d a quarter that year, he had ten quarters left. Malt was a better product to send by pack horse being more valuable in weight than barley.

His eight cows were just calving so cheese making would have begun in the dairy. His son must sell some of his produce to pay the Lady Day rent, vicar's dues, the herdsman and other outgoings.

In the barn was some corn waiting to be threshed and the remainder of his pulses. He had £7 of hay over so the stock had not gone wanting. His horses and mares were worth £16 and his equipment which included waggons, carts, ploughs and harrows they valued at £33-16s.

He must have had around 18 acres of greensward which was valued here at 10s an acre for the North Field, but although the West Mead rent had risen to 5s an acre we do not know how many meads theToms were leasing above their allotted 2.5 acres for 2.5 yardlands .

Toms' arable is interesting. "Wheat in feild £16... Barley and pulse £43." The appraisers quote his sown crops at the current market price for corn in the field. The wheat at 32s to the acre meant Toms has exactly 10 acres sown with different varieties of wheat and rye. Had he still the same balance of peas as wheat that his grandfather had? The peas that year were worth £1 an acre in the field and barley £2. Toms' were valued together at £43. If the peas matched the wheat and had 10 acres at £10, it left £33 for barley which at £2 the acre comes to a sown acreage of 16a 2r. The fallow presumably still matched the barley for they do not mention vetches [MS. Will Pec. 53/2/26].

The wheat had increased at the expense of barley, now down to 16a 2r. Wheat had risen in price and could reach London in the flat bottomed boats and packhorses, but was the population large enough by 1696 to make demands on Banbury and still allow for profit?

Parliament had had to raise the limit over which no corn could be sent to the ports if it was likely to cause a dearth in this country. As the price of wheat rose steadily, so the Acts of 1593, 1604, 1623 and 1660 kept pace with it. They brought the limit up from 20s a quarter, via 26s 8d, 32s to 40s, which shows how the price of wheat encouraged extra planting when it appeared to be forever spiralling upwards and could increase the revenues of all husbandmen who could afford to sell some corn.

W.G.Hoskins found in sixteenth century inventories that farming was flexible. "This flexibility of the open-field system, giving individual farmers considerably more scope for initiative than is commonly believed cannot be emphasised too strongly."

If the husbandmen farming the Open Common Field in Cropredy planted by furlong as Hoskins discovered they did in Leicestershire where "Barley was sown in the same field as wheat and rye, so that the furlong system of rotation apparently applied to one field," then there was no need for the careful keeping of the parcels in their Quarter divisions [ Age of Plunder p 78. 1976 Longman ], except for the fact one was autumn sown and one spring. In Cropredy we have seen they were using a Two Field System and taking half yardland parcels to establish sowing quotas. The Quarter divisions were definitely useful in the distribution of the parcels. The evidence found the Two Field System, the four Quarters, the rotation of furlongs within the Quarters, and the smallest units on which the whole was built (strips of varying sizes such as butts, lands or acres) were capable of being joined or broken down into small rotatable units possibly on a four or eight year rotation. If furlongs alone had been the governing factor at Cropredy what would have happened when some farmers had more land in some particular furlongs and none in others? With new material it may still be found that Leicestershire and Cropredy had a lot in common, but at present a great deal of study still needs to be done on Quarters not completely rotated due to uneven croping, and land parcel distribution in other local Oxfordshire parishes such as Bourton or Wardington.

Did the vicar, whom we come to in the next chapter, already farm like the Toms family and grow wheat to sell in increasing amounts? Was it by skill as managers, or entirely by changing their crop quotas that they were able to increase their wheat at the expense of barley? Communal decisions made these quotas, but could some "hitch" part of the fallow to grow more peas one year followed by wheat the next? If every Tom, Dick and Harry did this to please the market demands surely the whole system of rotation would eventually loose the benefits of fallow land with it's important communal grazing and not just barley, and so eventually decrease their yields? Until vetches and roots became part of the general cultivation in Cropredy to enable them to plant all the fallow it does not seem possible that more than a few planted extra wheat. We turn next to the Vicar's sowing records to discover how much the farmers could grow.