Watermeadows in Wessex a Re-evaluation for the Period 164o-I 850" By G G SBOWIE

HIS short article does not propose to evidence that 'Every brook and riverlet' was present a comprehensive survey of 'applied to irrigation when practicable', T watermeadows in Wessex. Rather because the produce of watermeadows was the aim is to bring to the fore some invaluable to the downland farmer and statements made by Prof E Kerridge, Dr sheep breeder. "- Indeed, such was their value E L Jones, M C Naish, Dr J H Bettey and and importance, that nearly all suitable sites Dr J R Wordie during the last thirty years had been converted into watermeadows by or so, and assess them in the light of evidence about 179o, if not forty years before. Other from primary documentary sources, ever historians, such as ProfKerridge, recognize bearing in mind what is practical and feasible the significance ofwatermeadows, but find in farming life.' There appear to be some it necessary to minimize construction and inconsistencies in the section on water- maintenance costs, and exaggerate the num- meadows in the recently published volume ber of hay crops and hay yields, to prove it. of the Agrarian History qfEngland and Wales, However, such aspects will be seen to be notably where Dr Wordie suggests on one less important than the prospect of a page that they were not a 'crucial element' reasonable return on capital investment, and in the farming economy of the Wessex the advantages of a grass crop in early Spring downlands in the seventeenth and eight- and a reliable hay crop in July J factors eenth centuries, and on another that there which are really crucial for a proper under- was 'indeed a great boom' in watermeadow standing ofwatermeadows at this time. construction between 164o and I75O. This paper will show that the second supposition I is probably correct, but dispute the first The predominant type of watermeadow in contention. The suggestion that water- the region was the 'floated' or 'flowing' meadows :,,,ere not crucial is based on meadow. These were located on or near the estimates which show the small acreage downland rivers and streams of , of watermeadow compared with other Wiltshire, Dorset and Berkshire. This farmland. This will be countered with involved draining and landscaping riverside * The author acknowledges the advice and assistance of l)r E J T meadow, marsh and waste. Such land was Collins and B Alton in the preparation of this article. 'frequently a flat morass', in which case the ' Eric Kerridge, 'The floating of the Wiltshirc water meadows', first consideration was 'how the water is l'Viltshire ardmeologieal and natural history ma~,azine, LV, no 199, 1953; 'The sheepfold in Wiltshire and the floating of the water to be carried off', or drainage. 3 Equally meadows', Eeon Hist Rev, 2nd ser, VI, no 3, 1954; The Agricultural significant was that the land of water- Revolution, 1967. E L Jones, 'Eighteenth cenntry changes in Halnpshire chalkland farming', Ag Hist Rev, Vlll, I96o. M C meadows was irrigated with water that Naish, 'The Agricultural Landscape of the I tampsifire Chalklands, carried silt and lime in suspension which 17oo-q84o,' unpublished MA thesis, Univ of London, 196o. J H 13ettey, 'Sheep, enclosures and watermeadows in Dorset induced fertility and encouraged grass agriculture in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries', Exeter growth -- 'a water-meadow is a hot-bed Papers in Economic History, no 8, I973; 'The development ofwater meadows in Dorset during the seventeenth century, Ag Hist Rev, : Wordie, Ioc tit, pp 33x, 329; E Little, 'Farming of Wiltshire', XXV, 1977, pt L J R Wordie, 'The South . . . ', J Thirsk (ed), JRASEV, t845, p I67. The Agrarian History of and Wah's, V, part I, Catnbridge, J Thomas Davis, General View of the Agriculture of Wiltshire, 1813, p x985. 120.

I5I I52 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW for grass.., water acts upon land so as to again, v The nature of the soil on which accelerate vegetation'. 4Attempts were made watermeadows were built was important, to build 'floated' meadows elsewhere in and a gravel subsoil was particularly good Britain, but these were not generally success- as it drained freely. Peat beds did not ful or permanent. Their effectiveness on the drain so freely, and required more careful chalk downlands of Wessex was probably management, but the alkaline water neutral- due to a unique combination of factors, ized the acid in the peat which helped to including the reliability of the ftow of chalk make reasonable crops, and even heavy rivers and streams; the geomorphology and yields, possible. Watermeadows on peat at topography of the area, where the ruling Broughton in Hampshire were described as gradient in the valley was a critical factor; producing heavy crops 'although growing and the 'magical effect' of the 'calcareous a coarse herbage'. waters', rich in minerals.S The first grass crop on the watermeadows Amongst the best descriptions of water- was some 4-6 weeks ahead of that obtainable meadow construction and management are from ordinary meadows, and this 'early those given by Charles Vancouver and bite' was invaluable to sheep farmers on the Thomas Davis in their General Views of the downs. Generally ewes and young lambs, agriculture of Hampshire and Wiltshire known as 'couples', fed off this early grass, respectively. Their effective use depended though which part of the flock was pastured upon management and maintenance by on the watermeadows, and for how long skilled men, known as 'meadmen', each day, varied from area co area. This 'drowners' or 'watermen'. Repair work green feed was important. 'Even a small on the sluices and water channels was watermeadow which will produce an early undertaken about Michaelmas, and the crop of spring feed at the very time of the regularity and timing of the subsequent greatest pressure of scarcity ... must be phase of winter irrigation varied from more valuable to a poor arable farm than meadow to meadow, partly as experience can be easily imagined. ''2 In the early suggested, but also sometimes dictated by nineteenth century Thomas Davis con- the need to share a water supply with sidered the alternative ~ 'the consequences neighbours. Irrigation was stopped in of the month of April', that month between March and the watermeadows allowed to hay and ryegrass, where 'recourse is had to dry out. It was also advisable at this time to feeding the grass of those dry meadows that 'employ some people to go over the are intended for hay ... frequently the meadows and cut up the rank weeds that young wheat; in fact, everything that is appear, before the grass is too high'. (' green'. ,o Arthur Young extolled 'this spring Between the end of March and the middle eatage, which is of such importance to flock of May, watermeadows were normally masters, supplying them with plenty of pastured with livestock, normally sheep, food at the most pinching season of the but sometimes, especially near towns, dairy year'." Indeed watermeadows were con- cattle. The watermeadows were then sidered to be essential for every 'farmer who repaired, 'watered' again, and a hay crop keeps a flock of sheep, and particularly a taken in July. The subsequent aftermath breeding flock', and the question was asked was usually fed off with cattle (stores and ; J Wilkinson, 'The Farming of Hampshire', JRASE, XXII, 186,, dairy stock) and horses, and the cycle started pp 28~y-9o; J B Spearing, 'On the Agriculture of Berkshire', JRASE, set i, XXI, 186o, p 25. s PRO, IR/18/892o. 4 Davis, opcit, p 117. 'J W Smith, Observations on the Utility, For, n amt ManaWment El" Water W Marshan, The Review and Abstract of the Colmt), Reports to tile Meadows, Norwich, 18o6, pp 3o- 3 L Board of Agriculture, V, x817, pp 2oi, 375. ~° Davis, op tit, pp 123-4. "w./impey, Rural Improvements .... 1775, p I o7. " A Young, Annals of Agriculture, XXlll, 1795, p 266.

t~ !i: ,,i. WATERMEADOWS IN WESSEX: A RE-EVALUATION FOR THE PERIOD 1640--185 ° I53 'how could the farmers of South Wiltshire H P Moon and F H W Green suggested that

• . . pursue their present system of sheep 'occasionally in Hampshire a second crop breeding, if these meadows were taken of hay was cut, but the length of time which away? '~-' For most of the period under watermeadow grass takes to dry and the review the sheep were folded at night on uncertainty of late summer weather made a that part of the arable land which was being second crop too precarious'. 17 Occasionally prepared for 'lent corn', or spring barley, two hay crops were taken where the spring thereby enriching the ground with their crop was mown instead of being fed. This manure. From the late eighteenth century hay was 'more valuable than the second suitable fodder crops were also used for crop', but required 'great care in making'. 18 'night' folding during this critical period. No primary source known to the author The inclusion of swedes, July-sown rape, ever mentions a third hay crop, nor was such winter rye, and vetches, thus supplemented a crop likely to be a practical proposition on the effect of the enriched dung derived from 'floated' meadows. the watermeadows. In this sense alone Hay yields can also be exaggerated. Prof watermeadows were important in the evo- Kerridge claims that watermeadows 'crop lution of the sheep-corn mixed farming about four times as heavily as other meadow- system on the Wessex downlands. ,3 land'• 19Before continuing, it may be remem- bered that Charles Vancouver provides II reasonably reliable figures of hay yields Regrettably, some modern historians have from 'dry meadows and lowland pastures' made exaggerated claims about the subse- for Hampshire in the early nineteenth quent hay crop from watermeadows. Ker- century. The produce of hay from 'first ridge stated, 'if the need for more hay was quality' dry meadow was estimated at 36 great' renewed watering 'could produce a cwt per acre, and of the 'inferior' sort 22 second or even a third crop on part or cwt. -'° Arthur Young stated in I795 that whole of the watermeadow', and Wordie a good yield from a properly managed suggested that 'watermeadows could ... watermeadow on a gravel subsoil was 2 be mowed two or three times a year'. '4 tons of hay per acre, and supporting Charles Vancouver, writing in the early evidence for this figure is provided by the nineteenth century, was rather more cau- watermeadows at Wickham which were tious when he said 'these watermeadows described as 'properly managed' in I799 and are sometimes, but rarely, laid up for a which produced 'upon an average nearly 2 second crop. They are more frequently fed tons of hay upon an acre'.-" The sixty-two • . . with grazing or store cattle'." A few acres of watermeadow at Broughton were years later William Marshall said, 'the described in the late i 83os as 'good, one half watermeadows are laid up for a second crop on gravel ... the other half peat', and in some instances; but this is only usual yielded 2 tons of hay per acre at the same when hay is scarce: not that it is suffered to time six acres at also yielded 2 hurt the land, but the hay is of that tons per acre; and 40 acres at Stoke Charity, herbaceous soft nature, and takes so long which were described as being 'very scantily time in drying, that it is seldom well made'. ,6

'2 Davis, opcit, p 123. ,7 H P Moon and F H W Green, 'Water Meadows in Southern '~ Jones, Ioc cit, pp 1(~17, for background information; also England', appendix 2, Tile Lamt of Britain, pt 89, Hampshire, Wilkinson, Ioc cit, p 283. 194o, p 382. ,4 Kerridge, 1953, Ioc tit, pp 1o7-8; Kcrridge, 1954, Ioc cit, p 287; ,s Spearing, Ioe tit, p 25. Kerridge, 1967, op tit, p 259; Wordic, Ioc cit, p 33o. "~ Kerridge, 1967, op eit, p 259. '~ C Vancouver, General Vieu, of the Agriculture ofHampskire, 181 o, p .,o Vancouver, op tit, p 264. 272. "' Young, op eit, p 265; Tile Annaul Hampshire Repository, I, '6 Marshall, op tit, p 199. , 1799, p 72. • -. , ......

I54 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW supplied with water', yielded 13/4 tons. -'~ animal food, and as such played a crucial These figures are sufficiently similar to part in the evolution of the 'sheep and corn' suggest an average which is far less than husbandry system. Hence it is surprising Kerridge would have us believe. Individual that there appears to be no proper consensus yields could be even less, as for example in of opinion about the date by which they the case of a poorly managed watermeadow were in general use. Instead a range of dates on peat. The sixteen acres which belonged has been suggested for major phases in to Thomas Heathcote in Mead watermeadow construction which rather near Winchester yielded 9 tons of hay in reflect the historical bias of the authors than 1743, 17 tons in 1744 and 13 tons in 1745. `-3 demonstrate a careful examination of the Haymaking could provide its problems available evidence. Kerridge linked them as well. Watermeadow grass was said to be with his concept of a seventeenth-century 'often coarse', and the 'cutting of the grass agricultural revolution, asserting confi- young and in full sap' was 'indispensable dently that 'everything points to the years for preserving its nourishing qualities'. :4 between 1629 and I665 as the period when Farmers were urged to mow their water- floated meadow construction was at its meadows 'before the grass is over ripe, height', whilst at the other chronological otherwise the bottoms will grow yellow extreme Jones commented that 'another and contract a disagreeable rankness'. Care sign of the growing need for an alternative had to be taken when drying the grass and to natural pasture may be seen in the ':boom" the hay had to be 'pretty well made.., one in water-meadow construction between is more apt to under make it in hot scorching I780 and I830' , reflecting his belief in a weather.., as the outside will seem very sheep food/tillage crisis in the late eighteenth dry, when the inside is full of its native sap and early nineteenth centuries. '7 and moisture' . . . in these circumstances, Watermeadows were certainly widely if a large hay rick is set up 'there will be distributed in Wessex at a fairly early date. danger of its firing; if a small one, it will In Hampshire they had been built on all the turn musty'. Nevertheless, although an major south-flowing rivers by about I686, opinion was strongly cherished that the hay as for example at Sturbridge Mead, North did not contain that 'feeding or fattening Stoneham, constructed on a tributary of the quality' obtainable from good dry meadow, River Itchen in 1648; How Park Meads near the grass from watermeadows was said to Kings Somborne, , built about be 'very succulent and juicy, if cut in good I657; and Gorley Meade, River Avon, built season'. -'-~ Thus reliability can be seen to be in I686-7. -'s Kerridge suggests that the the critical factor -- after all, farmers were 'essential pattern' of the 'floated meadow 'nearly certain of a crop of hay on their network' was determined by I665, but watermeadows, be the season what it may', the evidence from Hampshire, though and good watermeadow was 'very valuable fragmentary, indicates that such an essential land, especially in dry summers, when crops pattern was not established until the early on dry meadows run very short and thin'. ,.6 years of the eighteenth century, and was then followed by a phase of 'in filling'. -'9 III For example, a considerable number of Watermeadows provided the downland watermeadows had been built between farmers of Wessex with a new supply of Kingsworthy and South Stoneham on the

:: PRO, IR/18/892o, 9o66, 9146. :~ HRO, IBM54, Cofi I, Box P. Heathcote Estate Papers. :7 Kerridge, 1967, op cit, p 266;Jones, h,ccit, p 15. :~ Vancouver, op tit, p 269. :s HRO, loaM7x, T 133. Fleming Estate Papers; HRO, 5M5o/2529. :s Wimpey, c~ cit, pp m7-8; Vancouver, op tit, p -'77. Daly Mss; HRO, 6M8o, ME/T 124. '~' Davis, op cit, p ,25; Wimpey, op tit, ptos. :'~ Kerridge, 1967, op oil, p 266. WATERMEADOWS IN WESSEX: A RE-EVALUATION FOR THE PERIOD I640-"I850 I55 River Itchen by the 17oos, including 'meads' tion in Wessex was completed by about at Winnall, immediately to the north of I75O, and certainly by I79o. Winchester, built about r66o; Marsh Moores, immediately to the south of Twy- IV ford, between I67O and I672; and North Some modern writers have tended to Stoneham Meads, constructed about 17oo.3° oversimplify the question of construction Compton Maim, built about I73o between and maintenance costs. Construction costs St Cross and North Twyford, and Otter- of watermeadows in the early nineteenth bourne Mead, built in r73o-3I, show the century were estimated at between £I2 and process of in filling. In fact the latter appears £20 per acre for Wiltshire; £6 and £8 for to represent an example of overcrowding as Dorset; £5--£6 for Hampshire; and between within ten years it was 'overflowed with £15 and £40 per acre for Hampshire in water and lain in a ruinous condition'. Here the mid-nineteenth century. 35 These are the watermeadow could neither be drained so much at variance as to be almost or irrigated properly because of the com- meaningless, but fortunately more precise peting needs of watermeadows already figures are available. Marsh Moores, Twy- existing immediately upstream and down- ford, cost approximately £3 6s od per acre stream of it. 3' M C Naish postulated a to build in I67O--72, whilst Otterbourne 'boom' in watermeadow construction in Mead cost just over £6 per acre in I73 o-- Hampshire for the period I79I-I84o, but 3r.36 Surveying, designing and supervising his evidence is not convincing, and actually contracts appear to have been undertaken indicates that most of the suitable locations by local engineers. At Twyford, Richard and in the county had already been exploited by John Baily were referred to as 'millwrights', I79I. >" In fact it is probable that the situation and were also responsible for reconstructing in Hampshire in the early 179os was similar nearby Shawford Mill at the same time. to that in South Wiltshire at the time, where Their fees accounted for over half the cost 'very few spots of land capable of being of the watermeadow project, whilst Thomas watered remain otherwise'." Jones makes Hardin charged two-fifths of the total cost this point when he agrees with H P Moon for watering Otterbourne Mead. However, and F H W Green that 'during the eighteenth there is just not sufficient data available to century in particular, watermeadows must generalize about construction costs and fees. have been pushed to the limits of areas Kerridge stated that 'the cost of maintenance where it was possible to construct them', was not great. The carriages and works and also provides two pages of evidence have only to be scoured and repaired which 'indicate the scale on which meadows annually', and Bettey that 'once laid out, were floated' in the eighteenth century. No the subsequent annual costs of maintenance such evidence is given for the postulated were very low, no more at most than Ios 'boom' of I78o-I83o other than citing a per acre'. 37 Thomas Davis gives similar 'personal communication' with P G H maintenance figures, adding that the Hopkins. 34 On balance it would appear that expense of the hatches (sluice-gates) 'if well the main phase of watermeadow construc- made' was a 'mere trifle for many years'. 3s In reality, the cost of correcting poor or inadequate original design, and of repairing, ~0 HRO, 18M61, Box F, Bundle x. Knight Estage Papers; HRO, 46M72. Mildmay Estate Papers -- 4 long account books; HRO, Io2M71/ES. .u Davis, op cit, p 121; Bettey, 1977, Ioc tit, p 43; Vancouver, op tit, p 3J HRO, 18M54, Cof 1 I, Box P, Pkt x. Heathcote Estate Papers. 268; Wilkinson, Ioc tit, p 288. 3: Naish, Ioccit, pp 260-77. •~¢' HRO, 46M72; HP, O, 18M54, Coflt, Box P. JJ Davis, op tit, p 122. J7 Kerridgc, 1953, op tit, p 1o6; Bettey, 1977, op cit, p43. 34 Jones, Ioc tit, pp 6--8, t S. '" Davis, op cir. 156 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW replacing and rebuilding hatches, weirs and Farm, near Romsey, made in 1793 indicated revetments, could be considerable. Marsh that the watermeadow was worth over Moores, Twyford, appears to be an example twice the value of the arable land. 4~ About of this as by I686, fourteen years after its the same time, George Boswell provided construction, its hatches and weirs were figures for watermeadows rented by the decayed and 'waterbankes' eroded. Between year which were located within a few miles 1686 and 1688 over £12o was spent on of Puddletown, Dorset.42 The yearly rental repairing 'wyars', rebuilding banks, level- for a watermeadow 'detached from any ling pasture and on other associated works, other land' was said to be 25s to 45s per and the main hatches, Great Wyer and acre, and the occupier also had the 'liberty Segars Wyer, were completely rebuilt in to sell the hay'. Sometimes the spring feed 17o4 and I7o6 respectively, s'~ Unfortu- on a watermeadow was let to one person, nately, the watermeadow element cannot the grass standing was sold to another and be isolated in the estate accounts and rentals the aftermath rented by a third. In this case, surviving for this period, so that it cannot the spring feed let for about IOS an acre be-proved that increased rents and returns (rather a low figure), the uncut grass or hay, from the improved land actually covered 30s to £3, and the aftermath from IOS to 15s the cost of these repairs and replacements. 'according to demand and quality'. 43 About Bad design, problems with water supply, the same time Young stated that the 'spring water drainage and neighbours, and poor eatage' from watermeadows 'let commonly management feature in the unfortunate at 20s to 25s per acre', whilst the 'aftergrass' story of Otterbourne Mead, built 173o- on the meads at Wickham, Hampshire, was 31, aspects of which have already been let from I5s to 2os per acre in I8OO. 44 mentioned. At first its fifty-four acres appear Generally, their rental value appears to have to have been watered successfully, so that been about twice that of ordinary dry by 1736 it was sufficiently drained and meadow. The yearly rent for a part of fertilized to allow double the number of Winnall Mead, north of Winchester, was cattle stock to be kept. However, by I74o £16 IS in 1752 , and the 'advantage of the it was in a 'ruinous condition', and some water' to the meadow was said to be improvements were attempted. £163 was 'not worth less than £30 a year'. 4-~ The spent on further alterations in 1746-47, but watermeadows at Stoke Charity were by the end of the century the meadow was described as 'very scantily supplied with again in a very poor state, and it is possible water' but still worth 55s per acre in I837, that it never did provide much of a return whilst the 'dry meadows of indifferent on the capital invested in it? ° quality' were worth 3os. 46 The rental value Thus it would appear that at least some of the pasture at Britford, Wiltshire, in 1839 watermeadows were subject to alteration was 8os per acre for the watermeadow and and modification until a tolerable balance 4os for the dry meadow. 47 between irrigation and drainage was Further evidence of the value of water- achieved. Thereafter the return on the capital meadows is provided in a 'Report to the investment was normally good. In 1728 Proprietors of Mills & Meadows' between forty acres of waterlogged, unimproved meadow at Compton Malta, near Twyford, 4~ i-fRO, 18M54, Cof6, Box H, Pkt F; Cof5, Box G. was worth lOS per acre; it was estimated 4: G Boswell, A Treatise on Waterin~ Meadows, 2nd ed, x79o, pp Io8- 9. that if watered its value would be increased 4J Boswell, op cir. to £z per acre. A valuation of Pittleworth 44 Young, op tit, p 266; Annual Hantpshire Repositor},, op cit, p 72. 4~ HRO, 18M6x, Box F, Bundle I. J~ HRO, 46M72. 46 PRO. IR/18/9146. 4o HRO, 18M54, CofIl, Box P. 47 PRO. IR/I8/IO925. WATERMEADOWS IN WESSEX: A RE-EVALUATION FOR THE PERIOD I640---I85 O I57 College Mill, Winchester and Wood Mill, V Swaythling, on the River Itchen, written in Watermeadows were regarded as such a safe 18o8. The 1271 acres ofwatermeadow were and reliable form of investment that owners said to be worth £4o5o, or £3 IZS per acre were prepared to commit themselves to per annum. As unwatered meadows they complicated legal agreements which were said to be worth only a third as much. 48 involved a high degree of cooperation with However, watermeadows probably had an their neighbours as for example Pool Mead, even greater significance as 'appendages to Otterbourne, a small spring-fed system on adjoining farms' -- the 'abstract value of a the side of the , which was good watermeadow' was said to be £5 an improved with the construction of a new acre; 'but its value when taken as part of a main carrier in I829. Its eight meadows farm, and particularly of a sheep-breeding occupied just over eleven acres, and farm, is almost beyond computation . . . belonged to no less than five proprietors ,49 The value of watermeadows was such who followed up their investment with an that 'in many instances' farmers were 'at a indenture which set out a rota for using the considerable expense in purchasing a supply water, based on seven days and nights each, of water' from watermill owners and and established the maintenance costs for tenants, s° For example, at West Aston which each proprietor and his successors Moors, Longparish, five farmers made an were liable. 53 agrement with John Hayes, the owner of Sometimes this cooperation broke down Upper Mill, in which he allowed them to and resulted in litigation, which in itself use his water on three days a week at the indicates the importance of watermeadows rate of 2s per acre per year 'for a terme of at that time. Some owners were prepared ten yeares' provided that they 'ground their to undertake expensive legal actions to grist' at his mill ~ otherwise they paid 4s defend their rights and preserve the viability per acre." A similar agreement was made of their watermeadows, and in the mid- when a watcrmeadow was built in Hunton nineteenth century there were said to be Moor, near Stoke Charity, in ~729-3o. The 'malay vexatious and expensive law suits' occupiers agreed with the owner of Weston concerning watermeadows in Wiltshire. s4 Mill to have the use of tke water on Near Winchester, the owners and tenants Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays for of Winnall Mead, Mill, and twenty-one years at a yearly rental of 4s per Durngate Mill had been squabbling for acre, and the mill owner also had a separate some years about the size of water hatches, agreement with a major local farmer, responsibility for maintaining particular Robert Cropp, to supply water to his two banks and watercourses, and the amount watermeadows on the other days of the that should be paid to Mr Knight who had week, this time at the rates of 4s and 8s for a the 'right of water' between Kingsworthy ten-year period. These two agreements, Mill and his own mill at Durngate, before embodying a lucrative income for the miller, finally submitting to an impartial arbitration were confirmed and continued when the in May I738. Amongst the many clauses 'common down, comlnon meads and of this agreement four tenants of the moore ground' were enclosed by private watermeadows agreed to pay a total of £4 agreement in 173 2. -~- I SS a year to Mr Knight for the use of his as HRO, 18M54, Col6, BoxH, PktF, No27. water." The fifty-two acres of Compton 4,~ Davis, op cir. 5o A and W Driver, General View of the Agriculture of Hampshire, 1794, p '9. s3 HRO, '8M54, Col6, BoxH, Pkt t. st HRO, IIM56/II9. s4 Little, Ioceit, p t67. 5-" HRO, 2M52/27-28. s5 HRO, 18M61, Box F, Bt, ndle I. j I58 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW i Malm watermeadows were the subject of a fortunate enough to possess them, but since court case in I83B-34. It belonged to the the introduction and extensive growth of Heathcote Estate and was split between two swedes, turnips and other artificial food, tenants, Richard Goldfinch, occupying the many farmers that have little or no grass- northern, upstream, part and James Com- land, have produced lambs equal, if not ley, the southern. They were subject to an superior to those occupying the best water- indenture of I78Z which stated a rota for meadows', s7 In Dorset in I854 it was winter, spring and summer watering, and suggested that the growth of roots and had collaborated on improvements and 'artificial' grasses had rendered meads less drainage works in ~805 and 1816. However, necessary, but 'not less acceptable', in sheep in the late 182os Goldfinch built a new carrier husbandry, s~ and drain which flooded and 'materially The coincidence of interests of those injured' Comley's watermeadows. Com- involved in watermeadow construction and munications broke down and the landowner maintenance ~ landowner, tenant and was forced to take legal action against farmer, and watermill owner ~ helps Goldfinch. The latter was dead by the time explain why watermeadows played such a the case was heard in September I834, and crucial part in the development of the judgment, with considerable costs, was farming economy of the chalk downlands made against his heirs who quit the farm of Wessex during the period I64O-I85O. soon after. 56 Landowners and farmers especially shared It is probable that problems about cooper- mutual interests -- landowners because the ating with neighbours, water supply and conversion of waterlogged marsh and waste water rights and maintenance problems only into watermeadow constituted an improve- influenced the decline of watermeadows ment which increased the value of the land, when viable alternatives to their produce and farmers because of the advantages of a became available. Decline was slow and grass 'bite' in early Spring and a reliable hay irregular, both in area and time, but the first crop in July. Hence the role and function signs of it can be recognized in the I84os. of watermeadows were vitally important In Wiltshire in I845 the point was made that during the changes in, and the evolution of, 'the real value of watermeadows is not as the 'sheep and corn' system on the chalk great now' as it had been in the early downlands of Wessex in the eighteenth and nineteenth century; 'it was thought imposs- early nineteenth centuries, s~ ible at that time for the sheep farmer to breed lambs on such farms as were not sT Little,/oc cir. s L H Ruegg, 'Farming ofl)orsetshire',JRASE, XV, 1~54, p 404. ~¢' HRO, ~8M54, Col6, Box H, Pkt F, No 27. ~" Jones, Io¢ tit, p 19.