CHAPTER II: HISTORICAL CASE STUDY—THE MEDIEVAL BRITISH
2.3 R EGIONAL D IFFERENCES OF B RITISH C OMMONFIELD S YSTEMS
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
30
basic living style of autarky. They were thrown into a society with economic model based on a labor-wage relationship. With hardly any skills to work in a labor-divisional market, they were skill-less and could but join the swelling ranks of the proletariat swarming into the cities at the turn of the Industrial Revolution.
However, such situations were not as dire in other regions of England.
2.3 Regional Differences of British Commonfield Systems
As mentioned afore, it was Gray who foundationally changed the understanding of regional differences of the British commonfield system. He identified the classical
“midland” system of two- and three fields104 versus other separate systems. These other systems have since received more scholarly focus and we now understand more about these other models. Other scholars have also tried to categorize the differences among these various systems.
Campbell, in his 1981 article made a more detailed refinement of commonfield elements into 14 attributes and categorized the common fields into 5 main categories according to the consisting attributes. The 14 elements came from detailed functions of 6 main elements: the waste, field layout, holding layout, fallow grazing, regulation of cropping, and mode of regulation. The five main categories are: (A) non-common subdivided fields, (B) irregular non-regulated cropping commonfield system, (C) irregular partially regulated cropping commonfield system, (D) irregular fully regulated cropping commonfield system, and (E) regular commonfield systems.105 To further clarify the main concept of “the commons” and contribute to my center aim of this paper, I will list the
104 The “two- and three field system” meant total sectors of land-use rotation: two-field system meant two fields in rotation and 1/2 would be left fallow each year, meaning leaving the land to rest and not produce any crop;
three-field system meant three in rotation and 1/3 stood fallow each year. However, it was later discovered that the rotation may not have followed in units of “fields”, but smaller units consisting of “strips” call the “furlong”.
This implied that a two-field system could adopt a three-course rotation. See Hopcroft, Regions, pp. 16-17; Alan R. H. Baker and Robert A. Butlin, “Conclusion: Problems and Perspectives”, in Baker and Butlin, Studies of Field Systems, p. 622.
105 Campbell, “Commonfield Origins”, pp. 113-115.
‧
1. Communal ownership of the waste;107
2. Arable land & meadow characterized by a predominance of unenclosed strips;108 3. Holdings made up of a regular distribution of strips (exclusive to this system);
4. Full rights of common pasturage on the harvest stock;
5. Full rights of common pasturage on half-year fallows;109 6. Full rights of common pasturage on full-year fallows;
7. Imposition of flexible cropping shifts;110
8. Imposition of a regular crop rotation (exclusive to this and type D system);
9. Communal regulation of all collective activities (almost only excluding type A).
Another scholar, Rosemary Hopcroft, in her 1999 book Regions, Institution, and Agrarian Change in European History, identified three categories: (1) the communal open field system, (2) less-communal open field system, and (3) enclosed field systems.111 The emphasis of such nominal difference was that there was a critical “communal” element central in the substantial variance of the three in a continuum as from the most to the least (the enclosed field systems being the least). While she based her categorization on Marc Bloch’s 1966 work,112 according to definitions provided, I can safely relate such typology
106 Campbell, “Commonfield Origins”, Table 5.1 on p .116.
107 The “waste” means unused land.
108 “Strips” are the long, narrow units of arable land split up for cultivation. They are usually thin and very long indeed, sometimes up to a kilometer. “Unenclosed strips”, then, are “divided by grassy bulks (unplowed ridges), by boundary-stones, and by the pattern of ridge and furrow left by the plow.” They are then grouped into bigger units call “furlongs”. Surrounding the village and church in the middle, the furlongs spread neatly around the village. Because little fence and hedges are used to mark boundaries, it generally has the looks of a wide-open country, hence “open fields”, or “unenclosed”. “Enclosed strips”, on the other hand, would be the opposite.
Fields are mostly fenced with hedges, trees, or stones, and little land was left open. Since many of the hedges are actually “live hedges” or including trees, the landscape would acquire a wooded appearance, hence earning the name of “woodland” regions. See Hopcroft, Regions, pp. 16, 20, 22-25.
109 On “fallows”, see footnote 104 on “two- and three field system”.
110 The “shift” is a certain designated area of land, maybe a furlong, but usually not an entire field of land. It is a unit of rotation, smaller that a field. See Hopcroft, Regions, p. 22.
111 Hopcroft, Regions, pp. 15-24.
112 Marc Bloch, French Rural History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966).
‧
Campbell’s type E, “regular commonfield system”; the “enclosed field systems” would equal to type A, “non-common subdivided fields”; and the “less-communal open field systems” would roughly relate to Campbell’s type B, C, and D, the “irregular commonfield systems”, although a few variants may be in question (See Table 2-1).Table 2-1. Comparing the “regular type” of commons among scholars
Scholars Irregular Types The Regular Type Gray (1915) others systems: East Anglia,
the Lower Thames Basin, Kent, and in the Celtic region (Ireland and Scotland)
classical “midland” system of two- and three fields
Thirsk (1964) (not mentioned) The “midland” or “Thirsk” model:
1. scattered strips of landholding
2. common grazing/ common cropping rights subjected to common rules
3. rights to common pasture and waste
4. the presence of an assembly of cultivators and the
(D) irregular fully regulated cropping commonfield system
(E) regular commonfield systems:
1. Communal ownership of the waste;
2. Arable land & meadow characterized by a predominance of unenclosed strips;
3. Holdings made up of a regular distribution of strips;
4. Full rights of common pasturage on the harvest stock, full- and half-year fallows;
5. Imposition of flexible cropping shifts;
6. Imposition of a regular crop rotation;
7. Communal regulation of all collective activities.
Hopcroft (1999)
The less-communal open field system
The communal open field system:
1. “communitarianism” was the essential trait of the system
2. regulations on communal cropping, fallowing,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
33
rotations, and grazing
3. regulated by a central body or council of some sort, called the “byelaw”
4. the long and narrow furlongs and open fields surround the village
5. stronger lordship, lower technical innovation, and moderate population
Table made by author. Reference: from respective scholars mentioned in this paper.
Apart from these typological based on physical and organizational differences, there are also other differences observed by scholars. Campbell argued that the structure of the lordship and its will makes a huge difference on the commonfield systems: strong lordship was associated with the regular commonfield system, lower technical innovation, and moderate population; weaker lordship was associated with the irregular commonfield systems, higher technical innovations, and populations to the two extremes.113 Hopcroft found out that the largest difference between the communal and the less-communal open field systems was the extent of community coordination and cooperation in agricultural matters. Less-communal systems differed in great variability of the countryside landscape, in ways of doing things and class relations, and in the individuals’ mind set. In communal systems, communal regulation of land use was accompanied by strong traditions of communitarianism. In communal regions and townships, people tend to be large and compact, living together with the church in the middle as the place for association and meets;114 the long and narrow furlongs and open fields surround the village;115 and these communities tend to have more village festivals.116
Of these different regional systems, one system stood out in many ways. Norfolk in East Anglia was a very interesting case. Hopcroft compared the communal open field
113 Campbell, “Commonfield Origins”, pp. 128-129.
114 Hopcroft, Regions, p. 24.
115 See note 108 on “unenclosed strips”.
116 Hopcroft, Regions, p. 25.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
34
system with the less-communal ones (Norfolk as a major reference point) to the communal one, presented by midland and central areas.117 First, on conditions of ecology, she found out that not only was Norfolk’s land poor in soil and climate, it was also subjected to drought in the summer and freezing cold North Sea winds in the winter.118 These were all bad conditions for Norfolk, a less-communal open field system by characterization. The midlands and central areas, in contrast, were fertile with clay and loams, the best of soil.
However, not only was Norfolk one of the most populated areas in England in the 1377 poll tax, Eastern England was also a major cereal producer at an early date. Eastern Norfolk in particular was also an important barley and malt exporter to the international market by the 13th century.119
Second, on the relation between peasant and lord, Hopcroft pointed out that due to the higher population density in the east, there tend to be more lord representation in a village.
This has the effect of lowering the lord’s bargaining power (peasants could choose to take suits to other manorial courts of other lords), resulting in lesser labor services to the lords, and even gave birth to a conversion to money payments at an early date. By the 13th century, most large estates used wage labor, while the rest of England used customary labor.
Additionally, these less-communal regions tend to have more freeholding peasantry. That is, they are free of feudal obligations and manorial restrictions. In East Anglia, the free population reached up to 80% in some areas. Due to the common law of the 12th century, the freeholders also had the right to appeal to the king’s court. This gave the freeholders much more land right protection than the customary peasants.120
Third, on agrarian technology, Hopcroft discovered that also less-communal regions
117 Campbell also did such a comparison. See Bruce M. S. Campbell, 1980. “Population Change and the Genesis of Commonfields on a Norfolk Manor.” The Economic History Review, Vol.33, No. 2 (May), pp.
180-191.
118 Hopcroft, Regions, pp. 59-60.
119 Hopcroft, Regions, p. 64.
120 Hopcroft, Regions, pp. 65-66.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
35
had the upper hand. Given better ecology, dense population and easier market access (closer to the London vicinity) in southern midland, seed/yield ratios were higher in east England than in the midlands 7:1 compared to 5:1. High productivity was due to much more sophisticated agricultural methods compared to other places, including “extensive use of leguminous plants, multiple plowings, replacing use of ox with use of horse, intensive soil fertilization and liming, and complex crop rotations that left smaller proportion of land fallow each year.”121
Before the Black Death of 1349-1350, less-communal regions like east England already had outstanding development in terms of population, agriculture productivity, development of wage labor, and better agrarian technology and methods. As Hopcroft argued, these were all contributions of a lesser communitarian community, weaker lordship control, and a more individualistic way of doing things.
After the Black Death of 1349-1350, low population levels caused more land to be available, thus contributed to an initiation of farmland consolidation. As land markets already existed especially in the less-communal regions where manorial regulations were lesser and weaker, the occurrence of the Black Death caused full boom on the land markets.
Already with a higher population of freeholding farmers and irregular land holdings concentrated in one area, unlike the communal regions (customary farmers with highly scattered holdings), the consolidation process of land—enclosure—carried on fevererntly, uncomplicatedly, and with much less complaints (it was not so in the more communal regions).122
Another important development after the post-plague period in the less-communal areas was the “spread of (more efficient) contractual labor relations”. Copy tenure was established in the east in early times. A “copyhold tenure” meant that “tenants possessed a
121 Hopcroft, Regions, pp. 67-69.
122 Hopcroft, Regions, pp. 69-71.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
36
copy of the terms (as entered in the manorial court role) on which their land was held from the lord of the manor….Copyhold tenure afforded tenants some legal support for their property rights; thus copyholders were more secure than most customary tenants.” This trend of “contractual labor relations” was accompanied by the development of rural industry in the less-communal regions. By the 15th century, the east (and southwest123) was very prosperous due to the development of the textile industry, as well as many other rural industries, such as brewing, salt making, shipping, etc.124
At the same time, small farms continued to exist due to good institutional strength in peasantry property rights. The technical innovative experimental spirits on the small farms provided much success in advancement of agrarian methods. This valuable output of technology and experience able farmers from these small farms provided much valuable assets to the operations of emerging large farms.125
In short, in the 15th century, the east was doing prosperous and kept its development advantage into the early modern era as they took the lead onto new agricultural methods and became the forefront of agrarian change and played an important part in the English agriculture revolution, which in turn, provided the industrial revolution an essential foundation.126 The flourishing industrial sector accommodated much of the landless peasants from the midland and central areas.