CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 211 



clings rather to an antiquated division. We are thus led to con- 

 clude that no three-field system prevailed at Long Houghton in 

 1619, and that the three " fields " of them ap were never really 

 such, but only convenient topographical names for different parts 

 of the township's arable. 



To get further information regarding the possible existence of 

 a three-field system in Northumberland, we turn to other sur- 

 veys made in the days of Elizabeth or James I. Many of them, 

 accompanied by maps, exist in the archives of the earl of North- 

 umberland, but the authors of the county history have seldom 

 transcribed the information which might be at once decisive. 

 They have not, except in one instance, given the distribution of 

 the acres of the tenants' holdings throughout the fields, an omis- 

 sion which greatly increases the difficulties of the investigator at 

 this point.^ 



A notable feature about several of the maps and schedules 

 which describe the townships belonging to the duke is their in- 

 sistence upon a division of the arable into three or four fields. 

 Round the village of AckHngton, a map, probably made in 1616, 

 shows three fields, North, South, and East, but it gives no areas.^ 

 The plan of Clarewood and Hal ton Shields, dating from 1677, 

 pictures two groups of three fields but is equally reticent about 

 their areas.^ On the Tuggal map of about 1620, what remained 

 of the fields amounted to 71 acres in South field, 64 acres in 

 Whittridg field, and 118 acres in Hedglaw field.* At Rock, too, 

 according to the map of 1599, there were " remaines " of three 

 fields — Earsley field containing 84 acres, Rockley field 70, 

 Arksley field 131.^ The survey of Bilton, completed in 1614, 

 assigns to three fields, also shown on a map of 1624, areas which 

 give to South field 176 acres, to East field 138, and to North field 



1 Unfortunately, I have been unable to examine the documents at Alnwick 

 Castle. 



2 History of Northumberland, v. 376. 



' Ibid., X. 389. Similarly, there is record of three fields, North, Middle, and 

 Low, at Ovington, but no information about their respective areas or the appor- 

 tionment of the tenants' holdings {Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, 1894, xvi. 129). 



■* History of Northumberland, i. 342. To Whittridg field should probably be 

 added 26 acres in Townsend flat and 17 acres in Glebeland. 



' Ibid., ii. 128. 



