The Heritage Park Intranet
	Artefacts	Archives	Masters	History	Notices

THE OPEN FIELDS AND COMMONS

According to the 1809 map terrier, the total area of open field arable land was 885 acres. Since, however, each field incorporated a certain amount of common in the form of roads, balks and other pieces of uncultivated land, the total area contained within the field boundaries was somewhat larger. The combined total for open field, combined and roads is given as 1099 acres, so, subtracting the two major blocks of common included this figure - the Green (115 aces) and Pitstone and Wadbro Hill Commons (44 acres) - we are left with approximately 942 acres of open field area,

As we have already seen, the open fields lay partly above and partly below the Chiltern escarpment. Below the hills were five fields of varying sizes: Moor Field, White Field. West yield. Red Field and Malm Fields. In the 1809 map terrier they are grouped in three units thus:

The arrangement of the fields as shown can the map is irregular, two lying on the east side of the central strip of enclosed meadow and road

And three on the west, or Green, side. The boundaries between the fields are formed by the two transecting east-west roads, the only exception being White Field which lies on both sides of the Icknield Way. Internally each field is divided into the traditional furlong units and these in turn into strips in individual ownership.

Up on the hills, by contrast, the units of open arable are termed indifferently fields and furlongs and their appearance on the map is different, being mere irregular and with boundaries less sharply defined. The whole area, comprising about 200 acres, was referred to collectively as "Above Hill" and was made up as follows:

The origins of Pitstone's open fields are lost in antiquity but we can be reasonably certain that when first set out they were considerably smaller than they afterwards became. The existence of a Saxon burial ground just above the Icknield Way is an indication that that area at least was then uncultivated. Nor should we suppose that uninterrupted expansion was necessarily the rule. In the 14th century return known as the Nonarum Inquisitions. Some acres were stated to be out of cultivation at Pitstone on account of the poverty of the soil. At Ivinghoe other acres had been abandoned, the reason given being the poverty of the people rather than the soil.

Documentary references to the open fields are found from the late 13th century onwards in the form of title deeds. The earliest these mention three fields only - East Field, North Field and West Field. Unfortunately no single deed mentions more than one field at a time so that we have no evidence as to whether and when the transition from two to three fields was made. As early as 1400 there is a reference to an additional field -

Mymes field (? Malm Field) and in 1417 Wabborewefeld (Wadbre field) one of the hill fields, is mentioned, A terrier of l656 mentions all the later field names except that Nowers Hill Field was then apparently called Windmill Hill Field.

The significance of the multiplication of the fields below the hill from three to five is unclear, but to speak of the "fragmentation" of the medieval system, as does one writer, could be misleading. In practice it may have made very little difference since the roads which, as we have seen, formed the boundaries of most of the fields must already have been in existence. Piecemeal enclosure of the arable which in many parishes had reduced the open fields to a mere remnant of their former size was in Pitstone relatively small even by the beginning of the 19th century. One reason for this was probably the abundant supply of common pasture within the parish boundaries. Moreover, much of the enclosure as then existed can be shown to have taken place in medieval times. A deed of 1298, for instance, referring to the manor of Erlai (Yardley), mentions a block of 24 acres of land with meadow adjoining by Northlane "between Seabrook and the field of Pitstone". Several field names in this area are indicative of woodland clearance.

The much more extensive enclosures at Barley End present a different problem because of their Association with a distinct settlement. Could it be that the hamlet, like some others, originally had its own separate open field system incorporating some, if not all, of the "above hill" area? What makes this less likely is that Barley End has all the marks of late settlement: its position on the borders of Ivinghoe and Pitstone is typical of subordinate "infill" settlement and, in fact, the name is not met with in documents earlier than 1244 when it was described as a hamlet. Its situation in a dry chalk valley makes it improbable that it ever consisted of more than a few scattered houses. Archaeological evidence suggests that some of the closes were formerly open field but others may have boon enclosed direct from the waste. All that we can say for sure is that some enclosure had taken place by the early 17th century. Corresponding to the two different kinds of terrain, two distinct crop rotations were followed. A 'memorandum in a surveyor's field book of 1806 states that "Pightlesthorn Open Fields" are divided into four of which one is every year arable i.e. the field above Icknield Way. The other three vis

In other words, the vale fields followed a traditional three-course rotation, while in the case of the hill fields a fallow season was avoided altogether, presumably by the introduction of turnips and other forage crops. There is evidence for use of such crops as early as 1712 "In the Chiltern part it has red strong clay for the most part enclosed and improved by sown grass, turnips, etc." In the 1801 crop returns for the parish the proportion of forage crops seems quite high at about one third of the sown arable

The employment of two distinct crop rotations in the same parish was not apparently, confined to Pitstone, being found also in the Chiltern parishes of Drayton Beauchamp and Great Kimble. The 5-oourse rotation practised below the Icknield Way appears backward, involving as it did frequent wasteful fallows, but it has to be remembered that the heavier Vale land was net so susceptible of improvement as the chalk soil of the hills. On clay soil. at any rate, a 3-field rotation of wheat, beans and fallow was still common as late as 1840. (Description of open fields by Kalm)

During the half-century which elapsed between 1803, when the expansion of the Ashridge estate began, and the enclosure of l853 the number and dimensions of the open fields remained the same. But if superficially nothing had changed, in fact a considerable transformation had taken place in the whole character of the system. There were two new underlying reasons for this. The first was the decline in the number of owners and tenants - in itself sufficient to distort what was essentially a communal system of agriculture - and the second the deliberate policy of the Ashridge estate. The process of consolidation of the scattered holdings which was the result of the changes was, in fact, already well advanced by 1809 when the parish map shows numerous (?) blocks of adjoining strips in Ashridge ownership, though as yet the majority were distributed between two or more tenants. As far as distribution of the individual holdings within the various fields, is concerned, it is noteworthy that few holding, included any land above hill, With the exception of about 12 acres held by three small owner, the ownership of all the land in this area was divided between the Ashridge and the Stocks estates. About forty acres of the Ashridge share was "in hand" in 1809 and the rest was held by Stevens of Church farm except for a few acres in the occupation of Hawking of Pitstone Green farm.

Comparison of the 1838 tithe map with the earlier map of 1809 reveal the extent of the consolidation, which had taken place in the interval. Warren's Corner, which had 17 strips in 1809, had only 8 in 1838; the Furlong down to Galligut Way had been reduced from 22 to 14, Rushenden Furlong from 7 to 2. Bellams Acre, which had consisted of 17 strips in 1809, was in one tenancy in 1838 - a block of 18 acres. Whereas in 1809 there were relatively few blocks of more than an acre, in 1838 the Ashridge holdings were mostly in blocks of an acre and upward, though some continuous blocks of Ashridge holdings were still let to more than one tenant. Where strips of less than an acre are found they usually belong to the smaller holding; some furlongs had a higher proportion of these small strips than others. Tenants tended to hold land in fewer furlongs; the number of strips belonging to Pitstone Green Farm for example had declined from 58 to 30. In addition the separation of the fields "above hill" from the rest had been carried a stage further by the transfer of virtually all the Ashridge land in this area from Church Farm to the upland Duncombe Farm which had been acquired by Ashridge in 1809.

These changes in the number and size of the strips were not accompanied by a change in the field rotation such as occurred in neighbouring Edlesborough where a four-course rotation was reported to be the rule in 1840 in the open as well as inclosed ground but in the former with much irregularity. A detailed memorandum of an agreement concerning field rotation made in August 1833 and signed by eleven landholders (only five of these could properly be described as farmers, the remaining six holding only a few acres each. The two "upland" fanners did not take part.) is entered in the Pitstone vestry book and it refer, to the White Field "season", the Moor Field and the fallow "season", in addition to the "land above the Icknield Way" which is treated separately. However there was evidently some flexibility about which rotation particular pieces of land should follow for it is agreed, that the outward piece of land behind "Yardley" and "Tun" furlong (belonging to Mr Parratt) should both be laid to the White Field season. Doubtless the assistant tithe commissioner had in mind arrangements of this sort when he remarked in his report on Pitstone in 1838 that the open field arable "cannot be cultivated out of the usual routine of crops except by sufferance" Although it would be wrong to think of the traditional system as ever having been entirely rigid, clearly the concentration of ownership that had taken place in Pitstone must have facilitated this sort of flexibility.

As far as crops are concerned, the 1833 agreement states that "any one may sow Clover, Sinfoin or Vetches to cut Green or for Hay" and it licences the cropping of corn or potatoes in the fallow season up to a maximum of five acres but is otherwise unspecific. In 1839 the following crops were grow on Pitstone Green Farm, which was almost entirely in the open field, "below hill": wheat (45 acres) barley and oats (49 acres) peas, beans and tares (57 acres). After the enclosure of 1853 a regular four-course rotation was enforced on the Ashridge farm judging by a printed estate tenancy agreement of 1860's which contain, detailed covenants on husbandry matters. Intimately linked to the open arable fields in the traditional village economy were the pariah commons with which, as we have seen, Pitstone was unusually well endowed. On the Green adjoining the village would have grazed the common herd of cattle composed of the beasts of all the farmers and small holders. In the hills, Pitstone Common had, until the 17th century provided fuel and timber as well as rough grazing for pigs and other animals; in 1800, greatly reduced in area it was still a source of fuel in the form of furze. Also in the hills, though a good deal less distant was an area of permanent pasture within the Bounds of Wadbro Hill field. In addition there were the usual right, of common grating on the arable fields after harvest and in the fallow season. At one time, too, common meadows by the brook, distributed annually by lot had ensured a supply of winter fodder for all the landowners but by 1800 they had boon enclosed and subdivided.

It would seen that as late as 1835 there was still a Hayward and so, presumably, a common herd of cattle on the Green. Right of common was quantified in terms of "cow commons", (i.e. the right to graze one cow) which was legal property right, pertaining to specific holdings and, like them, subject to lease or sale. Hence the same process of engrossing can be discerned as in the case of the holdings themselves. The total number of crow commons on the Green was fixed at 106, by 1828 they were in the hands of only nineteen individuals, holding from one to twenty nine each; the three largest Bridgewater tenants between them accounted for over half the total. By 1848 the number of commoners had shrunk to twelve.

Apart from this trend towards consolidation of ownership, there is evidence of a trend around 1850 to substitute pigs for cows on the Green but it is not clear how far this was carried. Evidence of the replacement of cow by sheep occurs, later: in 1848 there is a reference in the vestry book to an agreement to "give up the cow commons in the Field" (presumably Wadbro Hill common is referred to) by allowing "Mr Blinco to keep 100 dry sheep or 60 couples and Mr Jellis the same according to the lands in his occupation".

As the above reference suggests, sheep commons, unlike cow commons, were not fixed entitle, but were related to the number of acres held by an individual in the open arable fields. This was apparently because the sheep in question were "arable" sheep valued chiefly for providing manure for the land on which they were folded, being fed through the winter on special forage crops.

It is significant that the question of sheep commons is included in the 1833 memorandum on field rotation. In this it is laid down that land held above the Icknield Way shall entitle its owners to sheep common ("shall tell per acre for sheep common") that anyone who sows corn or potatoes in the fallow season must reduce his sheep common accordingly ("shall drop the sheep common for the quantity cropped"); and that "anyone may breed what lambs they please to the extent of their commons or may purchase one third and not to tell (i.e. reckon) until the time expressed in the old rate is expired". This is all the information we have about sheep husbandry at a general level but the evidence of the Pitstone Green farm accounts suggests that the number of sheep was increasing after 1840.

Communal regulation of agriculture was of the essence of the open field system and it is clear from the last quotation that even in the altered circumstances of the l830's some degree of consultation continued to be necessary or desirable. The traditional forum for such decisions was the manor court and detailed field "bye-law" are often found in the record, of such courts. In Pitstone, although the Manor court continued to meet infrequently in this period, it appears to have confined its activities to registering changes in copyhold tenancy and such regulations as have survived are entered not in the court record, but in the parish vestry book.

With one exception In 1848 (see above); they all occur in the five years between 1828 and 1833, the earliest being a record of a "special vestry concerning the Commons on the Green" which consist, simply of what appear, to be an assessment for the payment of "head silver" calculated according to the number of cow commons held. (The individual totals are first reduced or "sunk" by approximately one third, oddly, the amount, all of 4s. 6d. or multiples thereof, do not seem to correspond consistently to the number of commons in each case, and in few instance, no amount is entered.) The "Total to collect for a Rate" amounting to £5.12.6 may well have been used to pay the wage of the Hayward though no such officer is mentioned anywhere in the book. A later reference in April 1832 to the passing of the "Common account" of which no details are given, is probably to a similar arrangement and there is an implication of a regular informal process of consultation in such matters which was normally either recorded separately or not written down at all. The 1833 memorandum on the open field rotation which mentions "the time expressed in the old rate" has the same implication.

The particular matter of the "running" of pigs on the Green was subject of debate in the vestry in 1851 and the following two years and gave rise to some disagreement. There wore two issues, the first being the right of the commoner, to substitute pigs for cow and the second whether the cottagers should be permitted to keep pigs on the Green. In both cases the final decision was affirmative but it was made clear that cottager, were only to be allowed the privilege on personal application and under certain restrictions. It would be interesting to know whether this concession to the cottager, marks a new departure or is simply a regularising of an existing custom. It was precisely of such unofficial and therefore legally unprotected advantage, that inclosure often deprived the village poor.

© 2025 Pitstone & Ivinghoe Museum Society Pitstone Green Museum, Vicarage Road, Pitstone, Leighton Buzzard. LU7 9EY  Registered Charity No. 273931