Appendix Open-field records, accumulating over many centuries, have revealed a wide range of inter-related themes. Combined use of the information from field books and furlong plans reconstructed by archaeological field-survey, have made it possible to identify fields, 'furlongs and meadows enabling detailed studies of township structures to be made~ The economy of the fields falls into the three natural topographical regional types of the county; the Soke of Peterborough with its fen, the vills of the medieval forests, and the extensive champagne region lying along the Nene Valley and in the west. The Soke and the forest vills had good resources of fuel and grazing and did not experience the extreme difficulties of the west. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and especially after 1570, the champagne region converted arable to leys and cow pasture, so improving the amount of fodder and grazing available. This did not occur in the fen and forest regions; there were no leys among the arable, and animals were allowed on the fallow only to manure it, not because they needed rough grazing. Champagne townships not too distant from forests sometimes had detached parts to provide woodland and woodland -pasture resources. Northamptonshire townships were mainly two-field in the 13th century, changing continuously until almost all places operated a three-course tilth by the 18th century. More than three fields occurred in many vills after 1500, although they were usually grouped into three blocks for cropping. Forest vills often had multiple fields, probably caused byassarting. The ability of townships to change is illustrated by those uniting to form new and larger arrangements as at Barnack and Weedon Bec, where two townships were united. Raunds and Ringstead shared the fields ofthe deserted Cottons, and Higham Ferrers and Newton Bromswold shared the fields of the lost Buscott. A regular order oflands occurred in many field systems; analysis of terriers and field books shows that probably all townships had their lands laid out in a regular manner. An ordered structure seems to have been created before the 13th century, since the older the record the more likely it is to show tenurial regularity. The number of yardlands, in many cases, directly relates to the Domesday assessment of 1086 and to the field-system structure, which leads to the conclusion that fields were created before 1066. They were created after c. 750 AD from archaeological evidence, and seem to have been laid out with long lands that later (before the mid-12th century) became divided into furlongs. At the other end ofthe life of open fields, when they were enclosed, flexibility is again revealed by the occurrence of partial enclosure. This happened at many places, among them Bradden, which had the greater part of one of its two field systems enclosed in 1509, long before the remainder in 1803. Several places such as Braybrooke, Morton Pinkney, Norton and Stanwick, had one of their three fields enclosed in the seventeeth century. Such action re-created an 'old fashioned' two-field arrangement in the first instance, but there was a rapid change of the two remaining fields back into three, 154 APPENDIX 155 except in the case of Litchborough, which left its two fields while taking more than 35 years to agree to enclose them. The evidence of such changes, fossilised over a wide range of dates, may be interpreted as recording a continuous process of change, small units being amalga­ mated into larger ones. The archaeological evidence shows that there was much alteration of the Saxon settlement pattern. The survival of small townships, such as Buscott in Higham Ferrers and Potcote in Cold Higham, presumably relates to this earlier arrangement of small settlements, as do the double fields of Hardingstone and East Haddon. Different sized yardlands at Wollaston in 1300 may be explained by an amalgamation of two field systems for each of the two separate' ends' ofWollaston, each associated with its own manor. Manorial history since 1086 is, amongst other things, the history of feudal disinte­ gration and the building up of private farms and estates. The field-system evidence shows this to have started before 1086; the two manors recorded at Kislingbury and Raunds are shown by the disposition of their lands to have once been single manors. It seems likely that when vills took on their late Saxon physical forms and fiscal ratings there was one manor for each settlement and township. This account of townships and field systems has been largely confined to unravelling their spatial and physical complexities, and the way that open-fields are related to the available resources. Sifting of so many records has also revealed much evidence on the pattern of land ownership and its changes over time. Social and economic history cannot be included in this book, but some examples of changes in rents and tenure are given, to illustrate the scope of the records. A rental of individual yardlands at Stowe Nine Churches, made in about 1650, lists new increased rents as well as rents that could be expected upon enclosure 1. The con­ cern with money may be an attempt to solve the financial problems of the lord, John Danvers, culminating in his 1652 sale. Interest in the dates at which old leases expired is explained by the rents; properties had been let at low (medieval) values of about l2s a yardland, but those already relet were raised to about £8 a yardland and were to be increased to £9 as long as Stowe remained open-field, and to about £20 if it were enclosed. The rental therefore shows an estate changing from a medieval condition, in terms of rented values, to one exposed to current agricultural prices. Yeomen paying such low real rents, 7.5 percent of the going rate, were in a good position to increase their wealth in the seventeenth century. Related to 1988 values, a 1,000 acre farm paying £80 an acre rent would save £72,000 per annum, which in 30 years would acrue (without interest) to £M2.16, sufficient to buy 1080 acres at £2,000 an acre. Thus a tenant could save enough to buy his land in a generation; doubtless the same process.es operated in the seventeeth century, and lay behind the financial ability of W ollaston tenants of the Bridgwater estate to buy their farms (the whole parish) in 16342. Hemington shows the transfer of land from copyhold to freehold. The vill had two manors, one overlordship belonging to Peterborough abbey with possession split between three knightly families, and the other was the property ofRamsey abbey. The Peterborough manor was in a fragmented condition by the fifteenth century with a weak manorial custom. The estate had few local feudal dues recorded in sales, and, in 1 NRO S(G) 297-8; the document is undated but is before 1655 when it refers to unexpired leases. 2 Hall, Wol/aston, pp. 93- 98. 156 THE OPEN FlElDS OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 1488, Thomas Montagu, probably with the intention of building up an estate, bought all land possible, beginning with the main manor and taking land in hand. None of his purchases was accompanied by copyhold rights and so lands had become in effect freehold. By this means he was able to extinguish any manorial rights without fuss from the residents, who were probably few by that date in a small village, and establish leasehold on his own terms. A survey of the manor in 1512 is at pains to explain that all the holdings were held at the will of Thomas Montagu. Subsequent acquisition ofmonastic lands and tithes in 1540 (mainly belonging to the Abbey ofRamsey with some ofThomey Abbey and Hinchingbrooke Priory, Hunting­ don), which were already held on a long lease made in 1519, enabled Edward, son of Thomas Montagu, to complete the purchase of the whole ofHemington after which the Montagus could run the estate how they liked. Private enclosure took place in the mid seventeenth century, probably in 1661 3. A large body of evidence has been discovered for enclosure; searching for open-field. terriers of all dates naturally reveals enclosure dates, many of which were previously unkown. These are given at the end of each entry in the Gazetteer. The list below summarizes the data by century, ignoring partial enclosure, using the date of major enclosure. Century Township Number Enclosed percent 15 9 3 16 33 12 17 42 15 18 136 49 19 56 20 20 1 1 Tol4l 277 100 It can be seen that there was very little enclosure (3 percent) before 1500 in Northamptonshire, and not very much during the 16th century (12 percent). Enclosure really begins in the seventeenth century, although very few places have had any details published. Some parishes had draft agreements for enclosure made in the seventeenth century that did not take effect, and they were not enclosed until the Parliamentary era (Crick, Hardingstone, Weedon Bee). The area statistics for Parliamentary enclosure will need revision to account for earlier partial enclosures. Details of land-holdings and ownership were made for each parish at enclosure, and a 'profile' of the social structure is therefore available. An example is given in the Gazetteer for Mears Ashby (1777). This study has provided a substantial amount of evidence describing the nature and operation of open fields in Northamptonshire. Further work is required on many of the topics discussed, and on parishes not yet studied, to elucidate the structure and management of all the field systems in the county. The Appendix below summarises the numeric information in the Gazetteer in a convenient form.