The Field System of an East Kent Parish (Deal)

THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH (DEAL)1 By ALAN R. H. BAKER, B.A., PH.D. ALTHOUGH Kent was, by 1700, largely an enclosed county, unenclosed parcels of arable, meadow and marsh were not unknown. The arable fields which were subdivided into unenclosed parcels remain one of the most interesting enigmas of Kentish agrarian history. In some parishes the arable fields remained open until they disappeared during the late nineteenth century under the advancing sea of bricks and mortar. One such parish was Deal, where the six-inch Ordnance Survey map of 1905 records the outline pattern of a new housing estate encroaching upon the open fields, indicated by their pecked boundaries and numerous boundary stones.2 In this paper, an attempt is made to describe the field system at Deal and to discover why some fields in the parish were enclosed early while others remained open until the end of the nineteenth century. The Setting The nineteenth century ecclesiastical parish of Deal lay on the lower edge of the dip-slope of the North Downs, in the east of the county. In the northern part of the parish lay the flat marshes of Lydden VaUey and to the south the land rose very gradually, just reaching a hundred feet above sea level. To the south-east, the land descended to the sea, but in the north-east the marshes were separated from the sea by a sand and shingle spit, on part of which the modern town of Deal has been built (Fig. 1). The parish contained three main types of soil: the alluvial soils of the marshes, the fertile loams of the Brickearths and the more porous, thinner soils of the Upper Chalk.3 In detail, soils varied considerably from field to field but these three types provided the broad contrasts, and in the absence of any major contrasts of relief within the parish, contrasts of soil may be expected to have assumed a greater importance. 1 This paper is based on Chapter 4 of my unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 'The Eield Systems of Kent', University of London (1963), 183-216. I would like to aclcnowledge helpful criticisms in its preparation by Professor H. C. Darby and Mr. H. C. Prince, of the Department of Geography, University College, London. To Mr. K. Wass I owe thanks for drawing the mapB. 2 Ordnance Survey 6 in. Map (3rd ed., 1905), Kent, Sheet 58 N.E. 3 A. D. Hall and E. J. Russell, A Report on the Agriculture and Soils of Kent, Surrey andSussex (1911), 54-72 and 94-107. 96 THE EIELD SYSTEM OP AN EAST KENT PARISH DEAL PARISHES 1819 LAND USE I80I Great / £2 Mongeham M (detatched) / t \ i S ^ V \ A S\ walmer V jWl&LUL>XX J J HUNGER / DOWN, SHORT LONG TIGH TIGH Land own e d by [;.*.:-•1| J ames Car r , Esq E]M r 8 r uckner Gabriel Neue, Gent L I T T LE BY EAST gSjohn Jenkins, Esq TIGH TOWN Mr John Brackenbury V?M Mr Samue Fossick ui JJLJi i 4 4 0 yo FIG. 3. The Unenclosed Lands of the Manor of Court Ash, in Deal, 1734. Source : KAO U725 PI. rental contains many references to changes in the tenants of individual parcels of land and again the evidence suggests that parcels were transferred from one family to another, rather than retained within a single family. This suggestion is confirmed by manorial court records of 1752-66, which note many changes of land ownership as a result of purchasing.37 These records also show that the unenclosed nature of some of the parcels led to disputes over the intervening boundaries : on November 12th, 1754, Philpott Chambers was fined 4d. for ploughing up part of the lands of Peter Ham, John Iggulden and Adam Sampson, and on November 7th, 1753, Wilham Carhng and Ely Reader had been fined a similar amount each 'for want of a Marke' between their lands in 'Lower Didham'. Perhaps significantly, these records 37 KAO U924 (Court Presentments, uncatalogued). 105 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH contain no reference to the straying of cattle or sheep over the unenclosed lands and the practice of folding would seem to explain this. Certainly wattles were part of a yeoman's equipment,38 and folding was practised both before and after the period under discussion. The Seventeenth Century An idea of the type of farming practised at Deal in the seventeenth century is provided by probate inventories.39 For the parish of Deal, there are extant over three hundred probate inventories for the period 1550-1750. Only about one third of these, however, contain details of an agrarian nature and of these one hundred inventories only twentyfive were made in the summer months before harvest.40 The sample of useful inventories is thus small and any conclusions drawn from them will in consequence be narrowly based. Nevertheless, the value of the probate inventories lies not in the absolute measurements that they give but in the orders of magnitude that they suggest, permitting instructive comparisons between regions.*1 As a test of their reliabihty the probate inventories of Deal have been divided into two groups : first, thirteen inventories for the years 1560-1630 ; secondly, twelve inventories for the years 1630-1700.iZ A comparison of these inventories appears in Tables 1-4.43 TABLE 1 CROPS AT DEAL, 1560-1630 AND 1630-1700 1560-1630 Percentage 1630-1700 Percentage Wheat 97J ac. 26-0 144 ac. 28-3 Barley 168| ac. 44-9 226-J ac. 44-9 Rye 6£ac. 1-7 nil nil Oats 6Jac. 1-9 nil nil Pulses 95J ac. 25-5 134£ ac. 26-6 Total Sown 376£ ac. 100-0 502 ac. 100-0 38 KAO PRC 27/35/203—an inventory of Benjamin Ladd, yeoman, 1702. 39 Inventories have to be used cautiously, however, for as a source material they have important limitations. For discussions on the merits and limitations of probate inventories in agrarian studies, see : W. G. Hoskins, Essays in Leicestershire History (1950), 125-6 ; J. Thirsk, English Peasant Farming (1957), 32; E. Melling, 'Aspects of Agriculture and Industry. A collection of examples from original sources in the Kent Archives Office; from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century', Kentish Sources, III (1961), 7-8 ; F.W.S., 'Short Guides to Records. 3. Probate Inventories', History, XLVII (1962), 287-90. 40 KAO PRC 21/1-17, 27/1-43, 28/1-20. « J. Thirsk, op. cit., 99. 42 A list of these twenty-five inventories and their analysis appears in A. R. H. Baker, op. cit., Appendix IV (A), 393-6. 43 Tables 1-4 are constructed on the same basis as those in J. Thirsk, op. cit., which in turn were constructed on the same basis as those in W. G. Hoskins, op. cit. Thus the tables produced here are comparable with those in these two works, which deal with Lincolnshire and Leicestershire respectively. 106 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH TABLE 2 ARABLE LAND AT DEAL, 1560-1630 AND 1630-1700 Area of sown land (acres) Under 5 5-1-10 10-1-20 20-1-30 30-1-40 40-1-60 60-1-100 Over 100 Total number of farms Recorded sown area of median farm No. of holdings 1560-1630 2 2 3 3 1 nil 1 1 13 19 ac. No. of holdings 1630-1700 nil 1 2 1 3 2 3 nil 12 36-38 ac. TABLE 3 LIVESTOCK AT DEAL, 1560-1630 Number of animals 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-80 81-100 100 + Unspeoified number None Total Median number of animals Number of Cattle Owners 4 3 2 1 2 1 13 9 cattle Number of Horse Owners 8 2 1 2 13 3 horses Number of Pig Owners 3 1 5 1 1 2 13 11 pigs Number of Sheep Owners 1 2 3 1 2 4 13 58 sheep Of the crops grown, barley occupied by far the largest acreage and was over two-fifths of the total recorded sown acreage. Wheat and pulses each occupied just over a quarter of the total, and only occasionally were rye or oats grown at all. Although not occupying as large an acreage as barley, wheat was the most valuable crop. Of the pulses, peas was the most common sown and was tbe principal fodder crop cultivated. A number of inventories mention hemp, apples and hops, but the record here is too inconsistent to allow generalization. The median farm in the period 1560-1630 had a recorded sown area of 19 acres, that in the period 1630-1700 a recorded sown area of 36-38 acres. 107 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH TABLE 4 LIVESTOCK AT DEAL, 1630-1700 Number of animals 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-80 81-100 100 + Unspecified number None Total Median number of animals Number of Cattle Owners 1 6 2 1 2 12 8 cattle Number of Horse Owners 5 4 1 2 12 5-6 horses Number of Pig Owners 1 1 6 2 1 1 12 18-19 pigs Number of Sheep Owners 2 3 1 6 12 45-46 sheep If the inventories for the two periods are considered together, then the median farm in the years 1560-1700 had a recorded sown area of 33£ acres. Of the livestock, cattle, pigs and horses were found on almost every farm, and sheep on every one in two or three. The median farm in the period 1560-1630 carried 9 cattle, 11 pigs, 3 horses and 58 sheep, and the median farm in the period 1630-1700 carried 8 cattle, 5-6 horses, 18-19 pigs and 45-46 sheep. The cattle were principally dairy cattle, but some farms had a few store cattle fattening on the marshes.44 Horses were the main draught animals, as well as being used for riding and as pack horses.45 The pigs were usuaUy kept in the yard, in 'hoggstacks'.46 The sheep flock, valued both as a wool producer and as fat stock, was kept sometimes in the barns, but it was also often folded on the arable and pastured in the marshes.47 The inventories show, in fact, that farming at Deal during the seventeenth century was mixed, but that the emphasis was upon wheat, barley and sheep. The recorded sown acreage of the median farm in the period 1630- 1700 was considerably higher than in the period 1560-1630, which suggests an increase in the size of individual farms during the seventeenth century. This suggestion is confirmed by comparing a survey of the manor of Court Ash in 1616 with the rental of the same manor « KAO PRC 21/13, ff. 372-3 ; 21/17, ff. 157-8 ; 28/13, f. 54. « KAO PRC 21/14, ff. 372-3. « KAO PRC 28/6, ff. 387-8 ; 28/17, ff. 206-7. *> KAO PRC 27/1, no. 84 ; 28/19, f. 112v ; 28/1, f. 93v ; 28/17, f. 206 ; 21/4, f. 201 ; 28/13, f. 38. 108 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH c. 1750 already mentioned.48 The survey of 1616 lists 'the shottes and places where the said tenements and landes lye', and names the tenants of their constituent parcels. The 'shottes' are readily identifiable with those of the eighteenth century but it is impossible to decide which lands were enclosed and which were unenclosed in 1616.49 Nor is it possible to decide on the types of land that each holding comprised, although some of the names refer to 'mead' and to 'marsh'. On the assumption that the land unenclosed in 1734 and in c. 1750 was also unenclosed in 1616, we can make a number of comparisons.60 TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF PARCELS ON THOSE 'SHOTTES' THAT WERE UNENCLOSED BY 1734 Reduction in numbers Increase in numbers No change 1616-1734 9 3 12 24 1734-C.1750 nil 9 15 24 1616-C.1750 7 6 11 24 Over the period 1616-c. 1750, about half of the 'shottes' saw no change in the numbers of their parcels and about equal numbers saw an increase and a reduction : the general parcel pattern was fairly static and there was about as much increase in the number of parcels as there was reduction. Change was not great, and there was about as much subdivision as there was consolidation. TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF THE NUMBERS OF PARCELS ON THOSE 'SHOTTES' AND FIELDS THAT WERE ENCLOSED BY 1734 Reduction in numbers Increase in numbers No change 1616-C.1750 15 5 14 34 48 The survey of 1616 is Public Record Office (hereafter PRO) E164/40, ff. 8-llv ; the rental of c.1750 is KAO U725 M3. 40 H. L. Gray thought that the tenants' holdings at Deal in 1616 'lay almost entirely in open field' ; op. cit., 276. The later rental, of c.1750, shows, however, that both the enclosed and the unenclosed lands were listed in the same way and only with the aid of the map of 1734 is it possible to decide which lands were enclosed and which were unenclosed. 50 For details, see A. R. H. Baker, op. cit., Appendix TV (B), 396-9. 109 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH Between 1616 and c. 1750 consolidation of parcels was a much more marked feature than further subdivision on those lands that became enclosed by 1734 than on those lands that remained open. The reduction is most noticeable in the cases of 'Kingstile' and Tncipit Upland' : 'Kingstile' Tncipit Upland' Number of parcels 1616 14 21 c.1750 7 13 Consolidation accompanied enclosure : probably consolidation of parcels preceded and thus enabled enclosure to take place. Thus one reason for the lack of enclosure elsewhere may have been the very difficulty of consolidating : the parcels of a holding' were a t times very small and very scattered, resulting from a former thorough intermixing of parcels, and it would not have been worth enclosing land unless a number of parcels could be acquired in juxtaposition.51 Similar comparisons are possible in relation to the numbers of tenants. TABLE 7 COMPARISON OF THE NUMBERS OF TENANTS ON THOSE 'SHOTTES' THAT WERE UNENCLOSED BY 1734 Reduction in numbers Increase in numbers No change 1616-1734 9 5 10 24 1734-C.1750 nil 16 8 24 1616-C.1750 3 12 9 24 TABLE 8 COMPARISON OF THE NUMBERS OF TENANTS ON THOSE 'SHOTTES' AND FIELDS THAT WERE ENCLOSED BY 1734 Reduction in numbers Increase in numbers No change Not known 1616-C.1750 11 6 15 2 34 01 The figures also show that M. Nightingale's claim, that the changes that took place in the numbers of parcels were few, was a considerable over-simplification ; op. cit., 50-2 : Deal. 110 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH On the lands that remained unenclosed by 1734, there was a strong tendency towards an increase in the number of tenants, while on the lands that were enclosed by 1734 there was a tendency towards a decrease in the number of tenants. The unenclosed lands also saw far more changes than did the enclosed lands. In general, short term changes, both of parcel and tenant numbers, were many, but such changes tended to be evened out in the long term. The consolidation of parcels (i.e. the reduction of the number of parcels) together with a reduction in the number of tenants was most marked on those areas that were enclosed by 1734. On the unenclosed areas, the tendency in the long term was for about as much increase as decrease in the numbers of parcels and for an increase in the numbers of tenants. Thus the unenclosed, far more than the enclosed, areas were subjected to changes, both of their parcel patterns and of their numbers of tenants. Once parcels had been consolidated and enclosed, they became both physically and tenurially more stable than the areas that remained unenclosed. Consolidation could be achieved by exchange and/or purchase. While there is little documentary evidence for the former, there is abundant evidence for tho latter. In c. 1670 'the widdow peke's ffarme in Deale' was put up for sale, and the sale particulars list the parcels which the farm comprised.52 The farm comprised land in Deal and Sholden, the adjoining parish, and included scattered, unenclosed parcels lying in 'shotts' as well as parcels of marshland in Lydden Valley. In all, the farm totalled 98|- acres : of these, the sale of 44 acres, in various parcels, to ten different purchasers shows how the parcels of one tenant could pass to a number of tenants. In this way the tenurial pattern, and possibly the physical parcel pattern, could be considerably changed. Consolidation by purchase was probably more instrumental in modifying the pattern than was consolidation by exchange, and the consolidation of holdings was accompanied by an augmentation of holdings. Between 1616 and 1803 there was a reduction in the number of very small holdings, of less than two acres, and an increase in the number of medium sized holdings, of 2-20 acres (Pig. 4).53 The Later Middle Ages The source material for the later middle ages relating to the manor of Court Ash or indeed to other lands in Deal is extremely fragmentary 02 KAOU124E7/11. 03 The median holding in 1616 was of 1-2 acres, and in c.1750 and in 1803 it was of 2-3 acres. These figures are considerably lower than figures provided by the inventories (see Table 2). An individual tenant held land of more than one manor and so median figures based on rentals for a single manor are no more than a very rough guide to the size of holdings. I l l THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH c.1750 30H »: 70 I 10 20 30 HOLDIHSS 10 SO 30 HOLDINGS 20 30 HOIDINCS FIG. 4. Relative Sizes of Holdings on the Manor of Court Ash, in Deal, in 1616, c.1750 and 1803. Source : PRO E164/40, ff. 8-11 ; KAO U725 M3 ; KAO U725 Ml. and is largely confined to charters. Nevertheless, the charter evidence can be very useful : on the evidence of one charter of 1381-2, H. L. Gray claimed that seventeenth century conditions seemed to have existed in the fourteenth.54 A series of twenty-three charters for the period 1421-1698 show how a family holding, by the processes of purchase and exchange, was gradually augmented and consolidated55 and numerous other deeds suggest that these phenomena were not the prerogative of one family. The charters frequently contain detailed descriptions of the abuttals of the land being transferred and these show that often land was being purchased adjacent to land already in the hands of the purchaser. For example, in 1386 Simon Monger granted to Eichard 04 H. L. Gray, op. cit., 277. m KAOU36T193-216. 112 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH Seyer 1 acre 1 rood 4 feet of land in the parish of Deal of which £ acre lay 'apud Dalemelle' between the land of the said Simon on the east and the land of the heirs of John Staple on the west ; 1 rood lay between the messuage and land of the said Richard on the south and north, and the highway on the east ; l£ roods 4 feet lay 'apud Horshame' between the land of the said Richard on the west and east, and the common way on the north ; and \ rood lay 'apud Goldyneryde' between the land of the said Richard Seyer on the west and the common way on the east. Thus Richard Seyer was acquiring four parcels of land, three of which lay adjacent to lands already in his possession.56 In 1496 Thomas Wellys granted to Thomas Baker Z\ acres 1 rood of land lying in three separate parcels : (i) 1 acre 3 roods lay in a certain furlong called 'Hungredown' between the land of John Edwold on the west, the land of Richard Moys on the sonth, and the land of John Monys on the east and north ; (ii) 3 roods lay in the same furlong between the land of the same Thomas Baker on the east, the land of Richard Moys on the south, and the land of the said John Monys on the west and north ; (iii) \ acre \ rood lay 'apud Chalkpette' between the land of Richard Gaj^tter on the south, the common way on the west, the land of John Monys on the north, and the land of the heirs of Thomas Oxney on the east. From these descriptions, it is clear that Thomas Baker, in acquiring the parcel of 3 roods in 'Hungredown', was consolidating and enlarging the parcels already in his possession.57 The deeds also show that land parcels of the later medieval period were considerably smaller than the parcels of the seventeenth century, and this again illustrates that the purpose of consolidation was to enlarge the sizes of individual parcels as well as to concentrate the scattered constituents of a single holding. Such consolidation could be achieved by purchasing or renting additional parcels, and, unless the holding was to be enlarged, there often occurred the selling of other parcels. A similar balance could be achieved by an exchange agreement. In c. 1350 John Colley and Margaret (his wife?) granted to John Monyn, Rector of Deal, 1 acre 3 roods of land, of which 1 acre lay next to the lands of the said John Monyn on the south, and 3 roods lay between a certain way on the south and the land of John son of Wilham Richer on the north. For his part, John Monyn gave in escambo to John Colley and Margaret all that part of his messuage which formerly belonged to John de Foulmed. For the Rector at least, the exchange effected a consolidation of parcels.58 M KAO U386 T52 (9 Richard II). 67 KAO U396T198 (1496). 08 KAO U386 T62 (c.1350). SA 113 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH The charters in fact show that the unenclosed fields of Deal were, in the fourteenth century, more minutely divided than in the seventeenth and that, by a number of means, consohdation was in progress at least from the mid-fourteenth century. Evidence for the reverse process, the further subdivision of parcels, is difficult to find. One charter of 1431 records that John and Thomas Richer, sons and heirs of Wilham Richer of Deal, quitclaimed to Hamo Richer, their brother, all their right to 4£ acres of land, 1 acre of sandy land (zabuli) and 1 acre of meadow, which lands were formerly their father's.59 By surrendering their part of their rightful inheritance, John and Thomas Richer obviated the necessity for partitioning their father's holding, which fell in its entirety to their brother. Subdivision of the five parcels which comprised the holding was avoided. This example suggests that at times when subdivision was possible in theory it was not always enacted in practice. The implication seems to be that the general tendency from the end of the fourteenth century at least was towards consolidation rather than further subdivision. Parcels were very small by c. 1350 and their further subdivision may have become uneconomical. At this stage of the investigation, the question arises : why were parcels so small by c. 1350 ? In other words, their origin is still the central problem to be solved. A paucity of documentary material makes the problem an especially difficult one. A solitary grant made in the late thirteenth provides a clue. A grant, made in 1289, gave to Dover Priory three shillings and two hens of annual rent which Roger Skot, Allan Skot, Lambert Skot, Thomas Le Hors, Alan Le Hors, Wilham Le Hors and their parlicipes owed for 17 acres of land which they held in 'Skottesteghe' and 'Horsesteghe', and which John Le Stok owed for the tenement he held in 'Stokkenteghe'.60 The interesting point is the close correspondence between the personal names of the tenants and the names of the lands in which they held parcels. Deal differed not at all in this respect from many other parts of Kent where, during the thirteenth century, the personal names of tenants often corresponded closely with the names of the lands which they occupied.61 This makes it at least possible that the lands at Deal had a similar origin to those at, for example, Gillingham and Wrotham, where the partitioning of patrimonial holdings held in gavelkind tenure sometimes produced a field pattern of unenclosed parcels. A partial glimpse of agricultural activity at Deal in the fourteenth century is obtainable from an account roll, covering only 23 weeks of C9 KAOU36T211. 00 LPL Ms. 241, f. 157v. 61 For example, at Wye : H. L. Gray, op. cit., 296 ; and at Gillingham : A. R. H. Baker, op. cit., 118. 114 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH a year in the early or middle part of the century.62 Because the account relates only to a single year, and indeed to only part of that year, no precise conclusions can be drawn from it. Nevertheless, it can be seen that the ploughing was undertaken by two paid ploughmen, and that a shepherd was employed full-time and an oxherd part-time. That folding was practised is evidenced in the purchase of 12 wattles ad faid' and in the statement that 5 acres of land had been manured with the fold (compostaf cum fold') in comparison with 4 acres manured with cartloads of manure (compostaf cum carect'). In other respects, the medieval agriculture of Deal remains obscure. Conclusions and Conjectures The early field system of Deal remains obscure, although there is at least a hint that the parcel pattern of the thirteenth century may have been connected with the subdivision, if not of actual family farms, at least of units of land at one time in the occupation of a group collaterals. By the mid-fourteenth century, the fields were minutely parcelled and the process of consohdation in progress. Consolidation by purchase and exchange continued throughout the following centuries and was accompanied by an increase in the inequality of holding sizes and a general increase in the size of individual holdings. From the seventeenth century at least, the operation of the land market was of more importance than the partitioning effects of gavelkind tenure in influencing the field and ownership patterns at Deal. Some consolidation led to enclosure and by the mid-eighteenth century only onethird of the lands of the manor of Court Ash were still unenclosed. The unenclosed fields were not, however, organized into any two, three, four, six or eight field system and no evidence has come to light of communal agricultural practices. The pasturing of livestock on the unenclosed arable was made possible by folding and it seems that individuals folded their own stock on their own lands, there being no evidence of fold courses such as were used in East Anglia.63 I t is now possible to attempt an answer to the question : why were some of the fields in the parish of Deal enclosed early while others remained open until the late nineteenth century ? Three complementary rather than mutually exclusive explanations may be suggested : 62 PRO SO 6/1128/5, m4. 03 H. L. Gray, op. cit., 305-54 ; K. J. Allison, 'The Sheep-Corn Husbandry of Norfolk in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries', Agricultural History Review, V (1957), 12-31 ; M. R. Postgate, 'The Field Systems of Breckland', Agricultural History Review, X (1962), 80-101. Individuals certainly folded their own stock on their own lands within open fields on the Sussex Downs : A. M. M. Melville, 'The Pastoral Custom and Local Wool Trade of Medieval Sussex, 1085-1485', unpublished M.A. thesis, University of London (1931), 75 and 128 ; J. C. Cornwall, 'The Agrarian History of Sussex, 1660-1640', unpublished M.A. thesis, University of London (1953), 98-100. 115 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH (i) The area that was unenclosed by 1734 may in earlier times have been so minutely subdivided into parcels that consohdation was extremely difficult and slow. (ii) The arable bias given to agriculture and the high suitability of the soils for arable cultivation favoured the maximum utilization of the land, whereas hedges would have limited the arable area. Periodic grazing on the arable lands was made possible by folding. (iii) The contrasting field patterns at Deal reflected a contrast of soils : the open fields were located on the soils formed on the Upper Chalk, the enclosed fields were located on the soils formed on the Brickearths and ahuvium. The lands that remained unenclosed in the nineteenth century were situated on light, dry loamy soils, in an exposed situation and the growing of hedges may have been a problem not easily overcome.64 A correlation between open fields and the chalk soils in the neighbourhood of Deal was observed by E. Hasted at the end of the eighteenth century. Thus of Ripple, a parish to the south-west of Deal, Hasted wrote : 'The soil of it is much inclined to chalk, though there is a great deal of fertile land in it. The country is mostly open and the lands uninclosed ; it has no wood in it.'65 Of the adjoining parish of Great Mongeham, he wrote : 'The face of the country throughout this parish is somewhat different from that of Ripple last described, for it is more flat, even, and more inclosed with trees and hedgerows of elm ; the soil is more fertile, having less chalk and much loam, and deep earth throughout it.'66 Of Little Mongeham, he wrote : 'It is rather more hilly, and the soil more inclined to chalk, than Great Mongeham, last described, and the fields are more open and uninclosed.'67 In Deal itself, lands of the manor of Deal Prebend situated on soils described in 1647 as 'being chalky' were unenclosed then and were still unenclosed in 1766, but lands situated on 'haysill moulde' were unenclosed in 1647 but enclosed by 1766.68 This correlation of the open fields with the Upper Chalk and the enclosed fields with the Brickearths and ahuvium is also to be seen in a map of part of Sholden parish, to the west of Deal, in 1784.69 In many ways this study of the field system of Deal has been 64 A. D. Hall and E. J. Russell, op. cit., 102 : on the chalk arable country 'hedges will not grow in a very satisfactory manner'. 65 E. Hasted, op. cit., 134. 66 Ibid., 138. 67 Ibid., 142. 08 For 1647, see LPL Commonwealth Records/Parliamentary Surveys, Book A, ff. 314-27 : 'Copthorne' lay on the 'chalky' soils, 'Didham' on the 'haysill moulde'. For 1766, see KAO U442 P83. The land of the manor of Court Ash called 'Copped Thome' was unenclosed in 1734 but land called 'Dodham' was enclosed by then : KAO U726 PI. 09 LPL CC 8887. 116 THE FIELD SYSTEM OF AN EAST KENT PARISH unsatisfactory. In particular, the paucity of the medieval sources has meant that the origin of the open fields remains largely in doubt. Nevertheless, it has estabhshed that an open field pattern was not synonymous with a common field system, at least from the seventeenth century. It has also shown that many more manorial studies will be necessary before the enigma of the open fields of Kent is resolved. 117