Small Farms in a Sussex Weald Parish, 1800-60

Home , Chiddingly, Sussex, Uckfield, Weald

Small Farms in a Sussex Weald Parish 18oo-6o By JUNE A SHEPPARD Abstract The Sussex Weald is an area where many small farms survived into the nineteenth century, and their fate in Chiddingly parish between I8OO and 186o is explored. They thrived up to 1815; between I816 and I842, nearly half were lost, many of the remainder changed from owner-occupancy to tenancy, and a few additional ones appeared on newly-enclosed land; after 1842, changes were few. The timing points to the post-Napoleonic agricultural depression as the fundamental cause of change, mediated by a range of personal and holding characteristics that resulted in varying ability to withstand economic pressure. Changes were greater during this depression, than during those of the early eighteenth and late nineteenth centuries, because the small farmer's cash outgoings, especially in paying his poor rates, frequently exceeded his income. HERE HAS long been an interest in ing century and was less rapid. ~ Within the timing and circumstances of the this broad regional pattern, however, T decline in numbers of small farms there was much local diversity of timing, in England, manifested in studies that and about this we are far from fully range in scale from national through informed, on account of the patchy cover regional to local.' It is now accepted that of existing studies. One area for which the arable farming areas of eastern and more detail is required is the Weald of southern England saw the earliest and south-east England, for despite the exist- most severe decline, starting in the late ence of several general and numerous sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, small-scale studies dealing with its agrarian whilst in western and northern England history, there is little work specifically the decrease did not start until the follow- concerned with small farms) The limitation of our present knowl- 'H Levy, Large and Small Holdings: a study of English agricultural edge to only certain districts may result economics, Cambridge 1911; G E Mingay, 'The size of farms in in an incomplete understanding of the the eighteenth century', Econ Hist Rev, 2nd ser XXIV 196I-2, pp 469-88; D Grigg, 'Small and large farms in England and reasons for the decline. Further studies are Wales', Geography, XLVlll, 1963, pp "68-79; F M L Thompson, unlikely to alter the view that the funda- 'Landownership and economic growth in England in the eighteenth century', in E L Jones and S J Woolf, eds, Agrarian Change mental factor was the need to adapt to an and Economic Development, t969, pp 41-6o; David Grigg, 'Farm expanding capitalist economy. But econ- size in England and Wales from early Victorian times to the present', Ag Hist Rev, 35, 1987, pp 179-89; E Davies, 'The small omic pressure was everywhere mediated landowner, 178o-1832, in the light of land tax assessments', Econ or augmented by a range of lesser influ- Hist Rev, l, 1927, pp87-113; Margaret Spufford, Contrasting Communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. ences that varied considerably from place Cambridge, I974, Part l; M E Turner, 'Parliamentary enclosure and landownership change in Buckinghanashire', Eeon Hist Rev, 2nd ser XXVIII, 1975, pp 565-581; J R Walton, 'The residential C G A Clay, Economic Expansion arm Social Change: Etlgland 15oo- mobility of farmers and its relationship to the Parliamentary s7oo Vol I, Cambridge, 1984, pp 92-99; J V Beckett, The Agricul- enclosure movement in Oxfordshire', in A 13 lX,~. Phillips and tural Revolution, Oxford, t99o, pp 48-53. B J Turton, eds, Enviromnent, Man and Economic Change, 1975, 3Julian Cornwall, 'Farming in Sussex, 156o-164o', Sussex Arch pp 238-252; J M Martin, 'The small landowner and Parliamentary Coil, 92, 1954, pp 48-91; Brian M Short, 'The changing rural enclosure in Warwickshire', Econ Hist Rev, 2nd ser XXXII, 1979, society and economy of Sussex 175o-1945', Ch 8 in Sussex: pp 328-343; J A Yelling, Common Field and Enclosure in England Etwiromnent, Landscape arm Society, Gloucester, 1983; Brian 145o-185o, 1977, Ch 6; Dennis Mills, 'Early land tax assessments M Short, 'The south-east: Kent, Surrey and Sussex', in Joan explored: (1) Rutland, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire', in Thirsk, ed, Agrarian History of England at,d Wales V i, Cambridge, Michael Turner and Dennis Mills, eds, Land and Property: the 1983, Cb 8; Peter Brandon and Brian Short, The South East from English land tax 1691-J83e, Gloucester, 1986. AD looo, 199o, pp 17o-85,203,212-26, 322-3o.

Ag Hist Rev, 40, II, pp I"7-I4I 127 i i

128 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW to place. Beckett has detailed these for Cumbria, several authors have discussed

i / the role of enclosure in the Midlands, and ] S U S S E X ,Uckfietd ~' "~'l Wordie has examined the part played by policy decisions in one large estate. 4 It is probable, however, that in other localities there existed other factors as yet unrecognized.

i Among the mediating factors about , r which relatively little is known are the 1 kill.cite characteristics of individual farmers and holdings. We may postulate that the personal factors included the farmer's age and temperament, and the size and composition of his family, and that holding variables ~ncompassed size, layout, and tenure, but it is difficult to know precisely how these operated. Detailed local studies are needed to evaluate their influence, but so far as the earlier stages of small farm decline are concerned, relevant data have rarely survived in sufficient quantity to support reliable conclusions. It is not as a rule until the nineteenth century that

extant records naming individual farms FIGURE I and farmers occur in sufficient abundance Chiddingly parish: A. location; B. broad divisions and to warrant analysis of the role of personal turnpike roads and holding variables, but by this time small farms had already disappeared from I many regions of England. In the Weald, The parish chosen for this study is Chid- however, many such farms survived into dingly in Sussex, about eight miles the twentieth century, making the choice (13 km) east of Lewes; its 4477 acres of a parish in this region appropriate. The (I812 ha) straddle the junction of the High aims of the study that follows are to and Low Weald (Fig. I). The choice of identify all the small farms in the chosen this parish was determined by the poss- parish, together with the changes they ession of a corpus of data collected for a experienced during the first six decades of different purpose, but Chiddingly appears the nineteenth century, to explore the to have been reasonably representative of reasons why many farms disappeared at the farming practices of the Sussex Weald. this time, and to throw light on the The northern part of the parish (I on Fig. personal and holding characteristics that IB) has the least favourable environment, influenced the response of individual farm with steep slopes, poor acidic soils and an families to economic difficulties. extensive woodland cover. The south and south-west (III) is low-lying with heavy ,j v Beckett, 'The decline of the small landowner in eighteenth- and poorly-drained soils derived from and nineteenth-century England: some regional considerations', Ag Hist Rev, XXX, 1982, pp 97-I11; j R Wordie, 'Social change Weald Clay. Between lies a belt of some- on the Leveson-Gower estates 17]4-1832', Econ Hist Rev, and ser what more favourable undulating country XXVII, [974, pp 593-6o9; Turner, op tit; Martin, op tit; Yelling, op tit. (II) with soils ranging from medium loams 3 SMALL FARMS IN h SUSSEX WEALD PARISH 1 800--60 I29 to silty clays, s Prior to an 1817 Enclosure land of the parish was divided among Award, tracks widened here and there eighty-nine properties of under 75 acres into small irregularly-shaped greens that (twenty between 20 and 75 acres, and attracted squatter settlement, while an sixty-nine under 20 acres). Some of the extensive common known as the Dicker smaller owners were Chiddingly residents, covered much of the Weald Clay tract in while others lived in neighbouring par- the south. ishes or in Lewes. In addition to having to cope with This ownership pattern was reflected relatively unfavourable soils, Chiddingly closely by the farm size distribution, with farmers had problems of access to market, a small number of what were locally since many had to negotiate some of the considered to be large farms alongside a notoriously narrow, winding, and muddy large number of smaller holdings. The Sussex lanes, described by Young as definition of small farms suggested by among the worst in the country. '~ Two Grigg and Mingay, i.e., those between 20 turnpike roads offered easier movement and IOO acres (8 and 40 ha), has been once reached (Fig. IB). One crossed the adopted to ensure comparability with northern fringes of Dicker common, link- other work, although in practice virtually ing the parish westwards to Lewes and all had fewer than 75 acres (30 ha). 8 The Uckfield, and eastwards to Hai!sham and appropriateness of the 2o-acre lower limit Battle. The other ran north-south just is open to question, in that it cuts across beyond the eastern boundary of the parish. a continuum of holding sizes, but it does No railway has ever penetrated Chid- appear to correspond roughly with the dingly territory, and the nearest station point on the continuum below which during the period under consideration was farming was never the main source of at Berwick, on the line opened in I846 family income. Some small farms had from Lewes to Eastbourne, and about already disappeared before 18oo, neverthe- three miles (5 km) beyond the southern less the survivors still occupied around 3o boundary of the parish. per cent of Chiddingly's enclosed farm Like most of its Wealden neighbours, land in the early years of the nineteenth Chiddingly was an 'open' parish with century. many landowners. 7 The 1839 tithe survey listed ninety-nine owners, nine of whom, each with between 25o and 5oo acres, II owned about two-thirds of the parish. Before changes are examined, it is useful Excluding woodland, seven of these nine to start with a snapshot of the situation properties comprised a single large farm c I84O, the one occasion during the six (plus in most instances a few smaller decades for which there is comprehensive holdings), with three of the owners occu- evidence relating to acreages, tenures, and pying their own farm; one other owner- farm family composition, derived from occupier possessed one tenant farm in the tithe survey of I839 and the census addition to his own holding; while the enumerators' books for 1841. 9 remaining owner had two medium-sized In I839, there were twenty-eight hold- tenant farms. Almost all the remaining ings in Chiddingly that met the 2o-acre

5 M G Jarvis et al, &,ils and their Use in South-East Ent,land, Soil Survey of England and Wales, Bulletin No 15, Harpenden, 1984; s Grigg, op tit, 1963; G E Mingay, Enclosure and tile Small Farm in R D Lake et al, The Geology of the Country around Lewes. t987. the Age of the Agricultural Revolution, 1968. ¢' Revd A Young, General View of the Agriculture of the County of '~ Chiddingly Tithe Map and Award '839, PRO, IR 35/59 and East Sussex, and Edition, 1813, reprinted Newton Abbot, 197o, p 4'7. Sussex Record Office (ESRO), TD/E IO5; 184t Census Enumer- ~Short, op cit, 1983, p x55; Brandon and Short, op tit, p 3J8. ators' Books, PRO, HO ,o7/I 118. THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW ! I3O being worked with an adjacent larger unit, and two (with a combined area of 58 acres) were held by the same person, leaving twelve independent small farms. Of these, three can be classed as owner- occupied, six were tenanted, and three had a nucleus of owned land supplemented by rented plots. '° The tithe award indicates that farms of all sizes had between 5o and 8.5 per cent of their land under arable, with the single exception of a 3J-acre holding with 32 per cent. The typical arable rotation was fallow, wheat, oats, and seeds (clover and ryegrass), left down for two or three years. Small fw.'~ The majority of farms in zones I and II, $1~of femurt~d~ • A of Irn~ farmia~ into larger farms l~:o 1800 but none in zone III, had a small hop field which in certain years could be the source l mllo 0 ~ kJlomoue of considerable profit. Most of the remaining land comprised poor quality perma- FIGURE 2 nent grassland which provided summer Clliddingly farms in I839. Small farms: B=Beards; grazing for cattle, whilst in winter down- BB =Black Barn; BO = Broad Oak; BR = Brays; C = Charity; E = Easterfields; G = Gun; M = Millhouse; N = land sheep might be agisted. The tra- New House; P = Parsonage; PK = Pickhill; S = Stuckles; ditional Wealden cattle-farming system, SW = Swansbrook; W = Willetts. Small farms absorbed: which involved the retention of all male Gi = Gildridge; H = Hale; Sc = Scotland; St= Stockers calves, their use as plough oxen between the ages of three and six, followed by minimum to qualify as a farm. One, fattening for the butcher, may still have which was in effect part of a large farm been practised, c I84O, on some of the in the adjoining parish of Chalvington, larger farms in the northern part of Chid- has been discounted, and woodland has dingly parish. These farmers found the been excluded from the acreages of the abundant supplies of manure which the remaining twenty-seven. This leaves seven winter stall-fed cattle provided very ben- farms with between 2oo and 33o acres, eficial for their hop fields. By this date, four with between ioo and 2o0 acres, and however, horses had replaced oxen as seventeen with between 2o and IOO acres. plough animals on many farms and the The large farms occupied roughly 48 per emphasis of the cattle economy had shifted cent and the small farms I9 per cent of the non-wooded land of the parish. Farms '°Charity Farm has been included among the wholly rented in the ioo-2oo acre group covered a independent units, ahhough this status lasted only from 1838 to ]84]; Chiddingly Highways Accot,nt Book 1835-5o, ESRO, proportion of the parish (I7 per cent) PAR "~92/39/1. The owner-occupied category includes farms similar to that occupied by the I i5 hold- being worked by a member of the family other than the owner, and those where the owner was elderly and the land was worked ings of less than 2o acres (I6 per cent). by an unrelated small farmer. In a few instances, land in a Comparison of Figures I and 2 shows that neighbonring parish ,nay have been worked along with a Chid- dingly farm, but records need to be checked thoroughly before most of the small farms were located in it can be assumed that identical names referred to the same the zones of least favourable soils, either individual. The author initially assumed that William Guy of Chiddingly and William Guy of Laughton, whose lands adjoined in the north-east of the parish, or around and who rented from the same landowner, were one person, but the former Dicker common. Four were later discovered this was not the case. SMALL FARMS IN A SUSSEX WEALD PARISH 1 800--60 I3 I towards rearing and dairying. Wheat, Farm, have characteristics commensurate hops, store cattle, and butter were thus with reasonable prosperity and a place in the principal cash products on the large a capitalist society; all four heads were commercial farms." young or middle-aged, they had house- These basic products were sup- holds of between seven and eleven per- plemented or replaced on many small sons, and most of their land was rented. farms by clover seed, table poultry, and The remaining nine farmers with no speci- eggs.': In addition, many small farmers fied non-agricultural sources of income and their families would have undertaken had households of six or fewer persons. seasonal or occasional paid employment This group appears to subdivide with the for larger farmers (both local and in other age of the farmer: the seven with heads regions like the South Downs), or in the aged 5o or over are those most likely to wood-coppice industries, u In the three have retained a peasant economy, but the instances where the I841 census enumer- economic status of the remaining two, ators' books record an additional occu- with farmers in their twenties or early pation (blacksmith, brickmaker, and thirties, remains uncertain. innkeeper), this no doubt brought in a large share of the family income. Farmers with small acreages were thus not neces- III sarily those with the smallest incomes, and In spite of sorae shortcomings, land-tax some at least are likely to have adopted a records provide the best evidence for year- capitalist economy. On the other hand, by-year changes between I8OO and 186o others retained an essentially peasant way in the number and tenure of Chiddingly's of life, selling or bartering what they small farms.'S Assessment lists are available could, but otherwise subsisting on their for every year during the period, apart own produce. ,4 from I839, 1843, and I85o-58, and except Table I represents an attempt to classify during the years 184o-45 these covered all occupied small farms in Chiddingly all properties, including those where the c 184o, according to their social and tax had been redeemed. From I816 economic characteristics. The three far- onwards, most farms are named, and mers with known non-agricultural occu- almost all can be traced back before 1816 pations, together with David Guy of by their unchanged rentals and assess- Parsonage Farm, who also shared in the ments. However, one (Stuckles) could not running of his father's 23~.-acre Place be identified before I81o, a second (Beards) comprised two blocks in 1839 " Chiddingly tithe filu, PRO, IR t8/o283; John Farncombe, prize that were difficult to identify earlier, and report "On the farmi,,g of Sussex', JRASE, XI. 185o, pp 8 t-85; Young, op tit, pp 7o, 226-250; James Caird, English Agric,tltt,re a further four were partly or wholly it, 185o-51, 1852, 2nd edition, ,968, pp ,23-t27;J P Boxall, 'The omitted from the lists either on account Sussex breed of cattle in the nineteenth century' Ag His, Rev, XX, t972, pp 19-22; S Hawcs, 'Notcs on the Wealdcn Clay of of charity status (Charity) or because they Sussex and its cultivation',JRASE, XIX, 1858, pp JSa-198. occupied land on the former Dicker com- '"Hawcs, op cit, p ~98; B Short, 'Tbe art and craft of chicken cramming; poultry in the Weald of Sussex 1850-1950', ,'lg His, mon which appears never to have been Rev, XXX, t982, pp x7-30; BPP 1836, VIII, Select Committee subject to land tax (Black Barn, Brays, o,1 Agriculture, secoud report, p 6. '~ M Reed, 'The peasantry of uineteenth-century England: a neg- and New House). 'a The latter five farms lected class?' Histor l, Wkshop J, XVIII, x984, p 63; W A Arm- strong, 'Labour I: rural population growth, systems of '~ESRO, LT Chiddingly and LLT Chiddiugly; Michael Turner employment, and incomes', in G E Mingay, ed, Agrarian History 'The land tax, land and property; old debates and new horizons', of England and Wales, VI, Cambridge, 1989, pp 678- 9. in Turner and Mills, op tit, Cb I. ,4 Reed, op cit, 1984, pp 53-76; M Reed, "'Gnawing it out": a new '~ For the exemption of charity land see John Broad, 'The land tax look at economic relations in nineteenth-eenntry rural England', and the study of village communities', in Turner and Mills, op Rural Hist, I, I, 199o, pp 83-94. tit, p 62. ! ...... i

132 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW TABLE 1 Small farms and their households c 184o Farms Acreage farmed Additional sources of Farmer'sage Householdsize in Chiddingly of income 1841 1841 1839 owned rented

Millhouse - 31 brickworks 54 7 Gun - 32 inn, hops* 45-49 8 Willetts 2 22 smithy]" 47 1 I Parsonage - 36 joint tenancy of Place 26 9 Farm

Easterfields 38 18 hops 58 6 with Pickhill Strood - 47 hops 50-54 6

Finches 61 -- hops 58 4 Beards" 31 - poultry 63 6 Broad Oak 30 - - 55-59 5 Nash Street - 68 { 60-64 6 New House - 37 - 60-64 2

Brays 18 45 § 24 6 Black Barn - 75 - 3o-34 I * possibly additional land in Hellingly. J" rent from ~.5 acres. ++ farmed with a larger unit in 1839, but separate by t841. § rent from 1~ acres.

had therefore to be omitted from this part (Hilders), and absorbed into the larger of the analysis, leaving seventeen for holding. Of the nine owner-occupied which it is possible to identify tenurial farms, seven saw no significant changes, changes (Fig. 3). The approximate size of whilst Hale and Swansbrook were farms that had disappeared before 1839 acquired by an absentee landlord in 181 I was estimated ti'om tithe award evidence. but continued to be occupied by local The changes can be conveniently families. The overall picture thus mirrors grouped by three phases of differing agri- trends noted in earlier studies, with small cultural prosperity. farmers flourishing and owner-occupancy I8OO--I815" Details are available in I8oo increasing.' 7 for sixteen farms; seven were independent 1816--1842: The period of agricultural tenanted units, while nine were occupied distress that followed the N apolconic wars by their owners. Among the tenanted lingered on in the unfivourable environ- firms, two (Parsonage and Foxhunt) saw ment of the Weald until the I84OS (1842 no significant tenurial changes during this was selected as the arbitrary terminal date period; three (Willetts, Gildridge, and for this period in order to encompass all Nash Street) were purchased by their ten- changes of similar type). Figure 3 reveals ants, and a fourth (Scotland) was acquired by a local man who allowed the sitting 'TDavid Grigg, The Agricultural Revolution in South Lincolnshire, Cambridge, ,966, pp 85-88; J V Beckett, q.andownersbip and tenant to remain until I8II, when the estate management', in Mingay (ed), op cit, Ch 6, p 558; A H owner began to farm it himself; the John, 'Farming in wartime', in E L Jones and G E Mingay, eds, remaining one (Stockers) was purchased Land, Labour and Population ira tire Industrial Revolution, 1967, PP 44-5; EJ Hobsbawm and George Rud6, Captain Swing, r969, by the owner of the adjacent large firm P33. SMALL FARMS IN A SUSSEX WEALD PARISH I800--60 133 OCCUPANCY 1837, when it was leased to David Guy, (1J who also shared the working of his father's E E ~u= Place Farm. Changes among the eleven m~=E g=. ro ¢or= ~= E~= E c ~E owner-occupied farms of 1815 started q_=cn_~o_~ ~ Non-resident rather later, in 1824. In five instances, I Q. Chiddinglyresident: owner-occupancy was replaced by leasing large landowner Chiddingiyresident: Z from an absentee landlord; two farms small landowner were acquired by the owner-occupier of a large Chiddingly farm (Robert Reeves ~~ PARSONAGE of Stream), who worked nearby Easter- STUCKLES fields himself until 186o but leased Nash = FOXHUNT Street back to its 1839 owners; Gildridge, ::iiii::iii:~!~!~!~!!!!i~i~iii~:::~i~:~:~:::~!~:~!~::~::iiiiiii::ii~iiiiii!!!STOCKERS after some vicissitudes, was acquired by SCOTLAND the Earl of Chichester and incorporated HALE into his adjacent I3o-acre tenant farm of :':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'~ NASH STREET Highlands. Thus by 1842, of the seventeen EASTERFIELDS small farms covered by Figure 3, eight PICKHILL had been absorbed by (or linked with) an GILDRIDGE adjacent large farm, six survived as inde- SWANSBROOK • ...... pendent but tenanted units, and three :::::: ;:::: :::::::::::::.... STROOD (compared with eleven in 1815) remained GUN the property of owner-occupying families. :.:i ii '@:i i MILLHOUSE I843-I86O: During this final phase, when W,LLETTS the economic environment was improv- :i:!!:. : :!: : il i::!::i:::'::i~:::.iiiiii!!::ii::~i::i::~ BROAD OAK ing, changes were few. One of the three FINCHES surviving owner-occupied farms (Wil- 1800 18'10 1~28 1130 18'40 llso 1860 letts) was sold during the I85OS to an FIGURE 3 absentee owner who leased the land to a Chiddingly small farms: tenurial changes I8OO to I86O nearby large farmer. ''~ By 186o only two small farms were owner-occupied and that this was the time of greatest change. only Finches was worked by the same It is also a reminder that the c 1840 descrip- family as in 18oo. tion of the previous section relates to the To sum up, all seventeen farms under situation after most changes. consideration (except possibly Stuckles) The three small tenant farms that still were independent units during the first survived in 1815 all saw their tenants decade of the century. By I86O, nine depart between 1819 and 1825, and only remained independent, of which only two one (Parsonage) had a replacement tenant were owner-occupied, compared with who lasted until 1836. The other two thirteen at the peak date for this tenure (Foxhunt and Stuckles) remained unlet for in 18o9. In the process of these changes, several years, reflecting the difficulty of the role of peasant farming in Chidding- attracting tenants during a time of ly's economy was inevitably reduced. depression; they were subsequently leased Attention must now turn to farms to adjacent large farmers. 's Parsonage omitted from Figure 3 because they experienced a somewhat similar .fate from escaped the land tax. A private Act of Parliament in I813 sanctioned the enclos- '"G E Fussell, op tit, p9o; G E Mingay, op cit, 1961-2, P475; B Short, 'The turnover of tenants o11 the Ashburnham estate 183o-185o', Sussex Arch Coil, CXIII, 1975, pp 157"-174. ") ESRO, RAF 74.

I' I34 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW ure of 790 acres of common waste in during the middle decades of the nine- Laughton manor, among which the most teenth century. -'~- extensive tract was the Dicker common in Chiddingly parish. The common had I previously been used for grazing livestock IV by tenants of Laughton manor in Laugh- It is generally recognized that the post- ton, Chiddingly, East Hoathly, Waldron, Napoleonic agricultural depression was a Chalvington, and Ripe parishes, some of feature especially of areas of heavy clay whom lived up to five miles away. The soils in eastern England, including the enclosure award of I817 allocated several Weald. "-3 Wealden farmers by this time sizeable parcels to the lord of the manor depended on wheat for a considerable part and a few large freeholders, but the of their cash income, and when wheat majority of the land was granted to the prices fell more sharply than costs in the remaining hundred or so claimants in the post-war years their prosperity evapor- form of plots of under five acres in size. -'° ated. 24 The problem arose primarily from It was no doubt small size and large the intractable soils which made it difficult numbers that militated against the to achieve the improvements leading to inclusion of these plots in the land-tax increased yields that were taking place in valuation. other districts. Income from other prod- The creation of so many small plots ucts was less volatile, and the evidence of remote from their parent holdings pro- distress offered to Parliamentary Select vided an opportunity for the exchange, Committees may have been exagger- sale, and leasing of land, which in turn ated. -~5 Nevertheless, there is little doubt led to the expansion of some former fringe that the whole period from I816 to c I840 smallholdings, and the establishment of was a time of difficulty for Wealden far- some completely new farms. A compari- mers, with the two phases of particularly son of maps for I822 and I839 shows that low wheat prices in I82I-23 and I833-36 this process had made considerable pro- being especially testing. -'6 It is against this gress in the interval.-" Short-time renting background that the contemporary and sub-renting, however, allowed con- changes among the small farms of Chid- siderable fluctuations in farm boundaries dingly parish need to be set. Explanation from year to year; smallholdings expanded requires consideration of both the general and then contracted again, making the trend, and the variety of response in indi- precise number of small Dicker farms at vidual cases. any date other than I839 very difficult to Small tenant farms succumbed mainly establish. Probably four or five was the during the earlier of the two phases of usual number, suggesting that only half low wheat prices, no doubt because several as many new farms were added on the

Dicker, as were lost on the old-enclosed ~"T Horsfield, The History, Antiquities alld Topo.¢ral,hy ,![ the County land of the parish through absorption into ~fSussex, 1835, Vol I, p 355; P,eed, op tit, 1984, p 57. -~J D Chambers and G E Mingay, The A2rictdtural Rev,,h,tioll 175,'- larger units. Nevertheless, the Dicker was 188o, 1966, pp 127-8; B A Holderness, 'Prices, productivity and the part of the parish where the ethos of output' in G E Mingay, ed, 01, cit, 1989, Ch 2, p Ioz. "4BPP, 1821, IX, I, Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select peasant farming survived most strongly Committee on the Distressed State of Agricuhure, psi; H G Hunt, 'Agricultural rent in South-East England, 1788-1825', /lg Hist Rez,, VII 1959, pp 98-m8; A H John, 'Statistical appendix', iu G E Mingay, ed, op tit, 1989, pp 975, 999. '°ESRO, CHR 1/15,16. ~J Phillip Dodd, 'Agriculture in Sussex and the Corn Law lobby', :' MS map of Laughton Manor 182a, surveyor Walter Figg, ESRO, Somherll History, I 1, 1989, pp 53-68. SAS Al/4/3o; Tithe map of Chiddingly 1839, PRO, IR 35/59, :"Chambers and Mingay, op cit, pp I Io and x27;John, op cit, 1989, and ESRO TD/E IO5. pp 794-5. I

J SMALL FARMS IN A SUSSEX WEALD PARISH 18OO--60 135 years of successive loss had left their occu- initiative; and secondly, the attitudes of pants badly in arrears with rent. Unless other members of the community and there was a mortgage on the property, outside purchasers towards small farms. the average owner-occupier would have Evidence on these matters is not as full as had smaller outgoings than a tenant might be wished, but there are some clues. farmer, but more capital tied up in the Most of Chiddingly's owner-occupying farm itself. Hc could therefore survive a small farmers survived to old age and had longer spell of unfavourable prices by sizeable families. ~8 It was usual for one son cutting down on repairs and maintenance, to inherit the farm, with all remaining increasing the level of family self- property being divided more or less equ- sufficiency, and making greater use of ally among all the children, except in cases credit and barter. ~-7 For essential cash pay- where they had received an equivalent ments such as rates and taxes he might be portion earlier. Large families thus resulted able to draw on savings accumulated dur- in the son who inherited the farm starting ing carlicr years of prosperity. It is thcre- with only srnall capital reserves. As farms forc not surprising to find changc delayed went through a cycle of capital accumu- until somewhat later among small owner- lation and dissipation, each in turn became occupied properties, with the precise tim- especially vulnerable to outside economic ing showing no obvious correlation with influences at the time when ownership wheat prices. had recently passed from one generation On the Dicker, enclosure during the to thc next. The fewer the offspring, the early years of the depression favoured smaller the danger, with the ideal being small farms. The many new plots that one or two surviving children, including became available for leasing at a time one son ready to take over the farm. At when demand was depressed must have the other extreme, childlessness or the encouraged the setting of low rents, absence of an heir willing to take over thereby providing opportunities for gave rise to the sale of the property on smallholders round the fringes of the for- retirement or death. Hence in families at mcr common to acquire extra plots. Even both extremes of size, changc was most the two entirely ncw Dicker farms wcrc likely to occur at or within a few years modest in size, and one still lacked a of the death of the head of the family. farmhouse in I839. The Dicker thus These relationships can be illustrated remained an oasis of small farms and fi'om several Chiddingly small farms. smallholdings up to I86o and later. Finches, thc only farm that was retained Within this broad pattern of reactions throughout thc whole period by the same to agricultural dcprcssion, however, the family, demonstrates the advantages of variety of individual responses, particu- fcw offspring. John Holman owned and larly among owner-occupiers, suggests the farmed it until I810, when recently- cxistencc of mediating factors to which marricd Samuel Hohnan became tenant attention must now turn. Two sets of at the age of twenty-seven, with John factors need consideration: first, the remaining owner until 1832. Samuel's characteristics of the farmer himself, family comprised just two sons, of whom including the timing of his career in relation to the onset of depression, the size -'" Where not otherwise noted, this section is based o11 (i) census of his family in association with local listings for 1821 (ESRO, PAR292/37/J), 184t (PRO, HOIo7/ltlS), 185t (PRO, HOIo7/638), and t861 (PRO, RG customs of inheritance, and his skills and 9/569); (ii) Chiddingly Parish Registers, ESRO, PARz92/x/2/1 , PARzgz/t/3[t, PAR292/~/5/t; (iii) Land Tax Assessments, ESRO, LT and LLT Chiddingly; (iv) Cbiddingly Tithe Map and Award :7 Reed, op cit, 1984. t839, PRO, IR 35/59 and ESRO, TD/E 1o5.

~)~ i I36 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW the younger was trained as a shoemaker, sessions apart from the farm and its 1 while the elder, David, joined his father implements were to be shared in the tra- in running Finches from I843, and became ditional way amongst his nine children?° owner after his father's death in the I85Os. Richard Barnes thus started to farm Strood Since Samuel's wife was only twenty- with relatively limited financial backing three when her younger son was born, during the worst phase of the depression, we appear to have here an instance of when he would almost certainly have been family limitation; was this perhaps with forced to draw on capital. A requirement an eye to inheritance? The fact that David in the will that he should pay his eldest Holman too had a small and well-spaced sister an annuity of £I7 Ios must have family of two daughters followed by two seemed the last straw. It is not surprising sons increases the suspicion. Survival may that he was forced to quit in I824. also have been aided by the timing of No will has been located for the second family events; Samuel had been farming example, Easterfields, but the circum- for a few years before depression struck, stances appear to have been similar. James while David took over when the econ- Funnell, senior, owned and farmed Easter- omic environment was improving. fields until 1829 when his son James An apparently childless small farmer Funnell, junior, took over the manage- was Richard Pelling, who owned and ment. James senior remained the owner, occupied Strood from I8z4 to I838. In and also continued to farm adjacent Pick- the latter year, when he was sixty-three, hill jointly with John Funnell, perhaps a he retired with his wife to the nearby brother. Both James senior and John died village of East Hoathly and sold the farm in 1837. Pickhill was sold immediately to to an outsider, though he retained the a Hellingly family, with James Funnell lease of a second farm, twenty-six acre junior becoming tenant, while at the same Charity, until I84I. Thomas Davies of time he now owned as well as occupied Willetts was not childless, but the only Easterfields. The size of James Funnell son of whom there is evidence had moved senior's family is not known, but it is away from Chiddingly. Davies retired likely to have been sufficiently large to from farming in I83O, at the age of sixty- have left James junior short of capital; his five, when he continued to occupy the own outgoings on his eleven children, same house but leased the land to his including several apprenticed to crafts- blacksmith neighbour. The property was men, must have been substantial. It is inherited by Davies's absentee son in 1845, therefore no surprise to find Easterfields and sold by him in the 185os, after the passing in I842 into the hands of a large death of the lessee. :~ neighbour, Robert Reeves of Stream. Two examples of farms sold soon after James Funnell junior survived as tenant of the death of the head of family can be Pickhill for a few more years, before examined. Strood (the same farm that finally disappearing from the Chiddingty childless Richard Pelling subsequently scene. acquired) was owned and farmed by John Investigation along these lines for all of Barnes until his death in I818. There fol- the owner-occupied small farms of Chid- lowed a brief occupancy by his widow dingly is not feasible, but such evidence as before the property passed to their young- is available supports the contention that est son Richard, aged thirty-two in I8ZI. most changes followed the death of the John Barnes's will reveals that all his pos- family head. Each farm would have experi-

~'~ESRO, RAF74, ~°ESRO, A73, p 309.

ci d 1 SMALL FARMS IN A SUSSEX WEALD PARISH 18OO-60 137

'ii Brly

• i

FIGURE 4 Former Dicker Common: selected small holdings and small farms, I839

enced the potentially dangerous stage in (b. I793), the illegitimate grandson of a the family cycle once a generation, and prosperous Chiddingly shoemaker, was since different families were at different described in the early I82OS as an agricul- stages of their cycles, the changes among tural labourer. After two years as gov- Chiddingly owner-occupied farms were ernor of the parish workhouse, he appears not surprisingly spread throughout the in the 1827 land-tax assessment as tenant eighteen-year period from I824 tO I842. of the nineteen-acre smallholding known Although personal ability and initiative as Marigolds (Fig. 4). s' By 1835 he was must have played some part in determin- paying highway rates for a much larger ing the fate of particular farm families, acreage, almost certainly the result of rent- evidence for its role is extremely difficult ing an additional forty or fifty acres on to identify. Since the Dicker was the the DickerY- He too must have flourished, district that offered most scope for initi- for in 1839 he moved to the II4-acre ative, the most promising approach is to Burches Farm. James Westgate, in 1841 look for evidence among men who aged forty, and a carrier from the Golden acquired land there. Thomas King became Cross Inn to Lewes, was in 1839 renting the owner of the eighteen-acre smallhold- just six acres of land (Fig. 4). By 1851 he ing called Brays in 1833, when, assuming was described as farmer of forty acres, that his age as recorded in the 1851 census and by 1861 he was also the innkeeper. was accurate, he was sixteen years old; by Such men could not have flourished I839 he was renting an additional forty- without ability and business acumen, but five acres of Dicker land in Chiddingly, possession of a certain amount of capital ]L plus a few acres in Ripe (Fig. 4). We may have been just as significant. William glimpse here a young man who had Thorpe had received a fourteenth share of iI, sufficient success on the bottom rung of his grandfather's estate in 1819; James the farming ladder to move on to a larger Westgate no doubt invested the profits farm, for the census enumerators' books J' Chiddingly Vestry Minute Book, ESRO, PARa9a/I.,/x. for 1851 recorded him as living on a 110- J-'Chiddingly Highways Account Book 1835-5o, ESRO, acre farm in Hellingly. William Thorpe PAR"92/39/I. 138 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW from his carrying business; and young when a mortgager was unable to service Thomas King must surely have started his debt, a good example being Millhouse, with an inheritance or parental backing) 3 where a Lewes solicitor became the owner Who can say whether other Dicker-fringe in 1825.34 No doubt such new owners smallholders like Thomas Townshend of were prepared to accept a regular rent Deanland or John Richardson of Holmes income as a substitute for mortgage pay- Hill might not have flourished equally if ments, hence they acquiesced to their new they had possessed comparable financial role, while probably taking little positive resources? By bringing into their small interest in the property. farms capital generated outside the farm- Except in the case of Gildridge, the ing economy, King, Thorpe and Westgate landowners who acquired small farms would have been able to invest in enough were all Chiddingly owner-occupiers. improvements to allow their holdings to During the earlier part of the period, pay their way. In contrast, the majority owners of some middle-sized holdings of smallholders and small farmers lacked acquired adjacent small farms in order to capita'l and had no means of escaping from reach a more economic size; Hilders for the traditional semi-subsistence econ- instance grew from about 180 acres in omy - even if they had wanted to. Per- 1812, to 284 acres in 1839 by absorbing sonal qualities alone were not sufficient to Stockers and Scotland. But once a large ensure success, or even survival. farm had reached what appears to have Turning now to the second set of been the local optimum of around mediating factors, attitudes towards small 25o-3oo acres, the owner's attitude to the farms are equally difficult to evaluate in fate of the remaining small farms may the absence of direct comment, but have changed. Robert Reeves of Stream assumptions can be drawn from indirect Farm (278 acres) became the owner of evidence. Prior to 1815, any small farm Hale in I83O, which he incorporated into put up for sale had found a ready market Stream to give him a total of 353 acres among the non-inheriting sons of local (including 52 acres of woodland) in the farming families. During the first decade 1839 tithe award. In I842 he became of the depression, some such purchasers owner of Nash Street and Easterfields, and still existed, encouraged no doubt by low in the 185os of Pickhill, but Nash Street prices. Richard Pelling, who acquired and Pickhill continued as independent ten- Strood in 1824, probably came from such ant holdings, while Easterfields was a background. In the same year, Edward restored to tenant status in 186o, after Weston, son of a Chiddingly millwright, Reeves had farmed it himself for eighteen purchased Broad Oak, where Westons years. Little is known about how large remained for the next quarter century. By and small farms normally interacted in the the late 1820s, however, this source of Weald, but work in other regions has purchasers had dried up, and all sub- revealed reciprocal arrangements that may sequent new owners were either large well have had parallels in this district. 3s local landowners or non-resident inves- Large Chiddingly farmers like Reeves may tors. Those investors whose place of resi- therefore have viewed the survival of at dence can be identified lived either in least some small local farms as conducive nearby rural parishes or in towns like Lewes and Brighton. The impression is 34 Laughton Manor Court Book, ESRO, A2327/]/1o, pp J4, 58. that many became owners by default, ~ Daniel Jenkins, The Agricultural Community in South-West If/ales at the T,arn of the Twentieth Century, Cardiff, t97]; fan Carter, Farmlife in Northeast Scotland 184o-1914, Edinburgh, ]979; Barry J~ ESRO, A73, p 547. Reay, The Last Rising of the Agricultural Labourers, Oxford, ]990. SMALL FARMS IN A SUSSEX WEALD PARISH I800--60 I39 to their own prosperity, whether as occupied properties. Grover's work does sources of labour, young cattle, or some not tell us precisely when the changes other product that could be obtained most occuned, hence we do not know whether cheaply and conveniently this way. 36 they were concentrated into the main The impression as a whole is thus not depression years of I725 to I75O) s Even of aggressive action on the part of the if they were, a decline of 33 per cent in new owners of small farms, but rather of 25 years would still have been less severe somewhat reluctant involvement, by than the Chiddingly decline of 47 per cent default or perhaps in the process of between 1815 and 1842. Far more detailed attempting to help a small neighbour. work is necessary before the precise impact of the eighteenth-century depression can be evaluated, but this limited comparison suggests that its overall effect on V Chiddingly's small farms was probably The conclusion that the post-Napoleanic smaller than that of its early nineteenth- depression was the occasion for major century counterpart. It is interesting to changes among the small farms of Chid- note however that where evidence has dingly parish raises further questions. It is been encountered for pre-I8oo losses in reasonable to assume that any period of Chiddingly, the farms concerned were low prices for agricultural products would located mainly on the somewhat better provide testing conditions for small far- soils of zone II. mers requiring cash for rent, taxes and The differing impact on small farms of essential purchases. So, how did Wealden the two periods of depression seems likely small farms fare during other periods of to have been a corollary of the increasing depression, notably those of the early market orientation of Wealden farming eighteenth and late nineteenth centuries? with the passage of time. The eighteenth- If changes were more modest than those century decline of small farms on the in Chiddingly between I815 and I842, better soils of Chiddingly's zone II may what was it that made the early nineteenth signify an infiltration of capitalist farming century a time of greater vulnerability? into the more attractive parts of the Evidence for a decline in the number Weald, whilst a peasant economy survived of small farms in one part of the Weald on soils less amenable to improvement. cluring the eighteenth century is provided The late eighteenth-century price rises led by Grover's study of seven parishes located to an even deeper penetration of market in Hastings Rape. 37 His tables, based on forces along with an expansion of the early land-tax records, indicate that the acreage devoted to wheat; this generated number of occupiers assessed at between on the one hand renewed interest in £2 and £m (roughly corresponding to engrossment among larger landowners, small farms as defined in this article) fell and on the other a greater reliance on by 33 per cent between I7o2 and I78I, produce for sale amongst small farmers. while the number of proprietors in the But whilst the small farmer's cash income same assessment range declined by 20 per rose, so too did his outgoings in the form cent. This points to a greater loss of small of rent or mortgage payments, essential tenant farms than of small owner-

3xJoan Thirsk, cd, Agrarian History of England and Wales V i, 'Introduction', p xxii. Mingay, op cit, 1961-a, p 48z, note 2, J¢'Beckctt, op tit, t99o, p 52. quotes evidence that in Laughton manor, which included part ~VR Grover, 'Early land tax assessments explored: (2) Kent and of Chiddingly parish, the main period when farms increased in Sussex', in Turner and Mills, cds, op tit, pp 204-18. size was between 174o and 176o. I40 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW purchases, rates, and taxes. Most signifi- teenth-century losses were minimal. 4~ Dis- cant was the steady rise in poor rates after cussion will proceed on this assumption. c W5o; in Chiddingly the rate exceeded The problems of the late 187os and the i9.s per pound of assessment every year I88OS affected principally cereal growers. between I8O9 and I833, rising to a peak Prices had been falling steadily, especially of 22s in I8 I9 .39 Some farm and household for wheat, and the situation was exacer- needs, and sometimes even rent, could be bated for farmers in areas like the Weald, paid for in kind or by barter, but rates where little underdraining had been and taxes had to be paid in cash. A small undertaken, by a series of wet seasons. 43 farmer during the early eighteenth- Many of the larger Wealden farmers, who century depression needed only small still relied on wheat for a sizeable pro- amounts of cash for this purpose, at a time portion of their cash income, saw their when the prices he was receiving for the returns so seriously reduced as to lead to products he took to market - butter, some relinquishment of farms and bank- cheese, eggs, the occasional animal - fell ruptcy. 44 Small farmers were better placed !. only modestlyY His counterpart living to survive as they were more dependent through the post-Napoleonic depression on dairy and poultry products, fruit, and required several times more cash, in absol- hops, for which demand was rising and ute terms, when his income, derived from market organization improving, hence much the same products as earlier, plus their modest incomes experie~ced less wheat, may have been at best only twice fluctuation. 4s At the same time, there was that of c W5o. In these circumstances, it is no significant increase in outgoings, and hardly surprising that small farms were even some rent reductions. 46 The result far more vulnerable to change during the seems to have been considerable resilience, second of the two depressions. ensuring small farm survival. The secondary literature contains little Such evidence as is available thus appears information on how small farms fared dur- to support the view that the post- ing the late nineteenth-century depression, Napoleonic depression saw greater changes and it is difficult to tell precisely how those among small farms than occurred during of the Weald were affected. By I924, hold- the other two periods considered. ings between 5 and ~oo acres in the whole Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth of south-eastern England occupied a centuries, most small Wealden farmers sold slightly larger percentage of the total area only as much produce as was necessary to of crops and grass than in I885, but the support their simple life-style, and they regional figure may disguise significant local variations. 4' A detailed study of size ~"A D Hall, A Pilgrimage of British Farminl5 1913, pp 47-8; J 13 Sykes and G P Wibberley, Prqfits aml Pwbh'ms of Farming in and tenurial changes in the Weald is South-East England, Wye College Department of Agricultural required before definite conclusions can be Economics, 1956, p 13; lan G Reid, The Small Farm Oll Heavy Land, Wye College Departme,lt of Agricultural Eeonontics, 1958, drawn; in the meantime, the continued p6. survival of many small farms into the 49C S Orwin and E H Whetham, History if British Agriculture 1846-1914, 1964, p 266 and Chart V; A D Hall and E J Russell, twentieth century suggests that late nine- A Report 011 the Agritlllture and Soils of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, 191 l, p 128; A 13 M Phillips, The Underdraining c~ Farmland in Eng!atld during the Nineteemh Century, Cambridge, 1989, especially plI9. 4~ p j Perry, 'Where was the "Great Agricultural Depression"? a geography of agricultural bankruptcy in late Victorian England 39Chiddingly Vestry Minute Book, ESRO, PAR292/12/2, Nov and Wales', Ag Hist Rev, 2o, 1972, pp 30-45; Boxall, op tit, p 19. ~835, list of Overseers and poor rates from 18o4 to 1835. "Hall, op tit, p 47; Brandon and Short, op cit, p 327. 4°Peter J Bowden, Appendix III 'Statistics', in Joan Thirsk, ed, 4"Charity Farm in Chiddiugly provides an example of rent Agrarian History of England and Wales, Vii, 1985. reduction: from £3o per annum in 1875, it had fallen to £18 18s ~' Grigg, op cit, 1987, p 187. by 1898, ESRO, PAR254/24/3.

i ~, /

SMALL fARMS IN A SUSSEX WEALD PARISH I800--60 I4I could normally withstand a period of lower VI prices by adopting a range of well-tried Two main conclusions can be drawn from strategies - so long as cash outgoings did this study. First, it confirms the need in not increase. What made the post- any consideration of small farm survival Napoleanic depression exceptionally testing to take into account the role of unavoid- for them was the requirement to pay regu- able cash outgoings, since the average larly, in cash, the high poor rates that then small farmer had insufficient financial prevailed. Wealden parishes, like most open flexibility to enable him to withstand a parishes in southern England, had seen a heavy outlay for more than a few years. marked growth in the number of persons This factor is likely to have had a signifi- dependent on parish relief during the late cant influence in those parishes of southern eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, England, particularly subject to high poor with a corresponding increase in poor rates during the early nineteenth century, rates. 47 The charge fell on all occupiers of but needs to be included among the range land roughly in proportion to the acreage of possible influences in all studies of small held, so small farmers paid less than large farm decline. Secondly, the principal ones. However, the larger farmers were in mediating factors that determined a farm a sense also beneficiaries, for many of them family's resilience were the amount of employed each summer a number of casual capital or supplementary income available, labourers whom they could leave the parish the stage in the family cycle, and, when to support during the wintcr¢ s Small farms the family head died, the number of chil- worked largely by family labour gained dren among whom the inheritance needed little from this pool of casual labour, yet to be divided. These mediating factors are were still required to contribute to parish likely to be of general application, sup- relief. 49 Year after year, the small farmer's plemented by others particular to their cash and savings were drained away, and place and time. his traditional resilience undermined. Further work is required to set the Blaug's view, that it is impossible to separ- analysis presented here in its wider tem- ate the burden of poor rates from the many poral and spatial context. The early nine- other difficulties that afflicted smallholders teenth century has been revealed as a in the years of deflation after Waterloo major period of change in Chiddingly, seems unduly cautious, for it was almost but a study covering a longer period of certainly this special feature of the post- time is needed before its comparative sig- Napoleonic period that made the small nificance can be accurately measured. Fur- farms of Chiddingly more vulnerable to thermore, since no parish is a perfect change at this time than during other microcosm of its region, there is room for periods of depression, s° a more general analysis of the history and character of the small farms of the Weald. 47 D A Baugh, 'The cost of poor relicrin south-east England, J79o- t834', Eeon Hist Rev, 2rid ser XXVIII, I975, pp 5o-68;J P Huzel, But for such temporal and spatial studies 'The labourcr and the Poor Law 17SO-1880', in Mingay, ed, op alike, the experience of Chiddingly's small eit, 1989, pp 76o-69; both are concerned with per capita expendi- ture rather than poor rates per se. farms between 18oo and 186o provides a 4SN Gash, 'Rural maemploy,nent, 1815-34', Earn Hist Rev, VI, yardstick against which other changes can t935, pp 90-93; R Wells, 'Rural rebels in southern England in the t83os', in C Emslcy and J Walvin, cds, Artisans, PeASAnts And be evaluated. Proletarians t76o-186o, 1985, p t3o. 4'~BPP 1834, HC XLIV, Report of the Royal Commixsion on the Poor Law, Vol III, evidence for Chiddingly Parish. ~°M Blaug, 'The myth of the old Poor Law and the making of the New', j Earn Hist, 23, 1963, reprinted in M W Flinn and T C Smout, cds, EssAys in SociAl History, Oxford, ~97.1, p 14z.