212 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 



216.^ At Rennington, where the fields seem to have suffered 

 no diminution from their original size, there were, in 1618, 89 

 acres in South field, 248 in West field, 146 in North field, 6 in 

 Orchard, and 29 in Barelaw field.- It will be noticed that at 

 Bilton and Rennington, those townships in which the fields were 

 most intact, the areas of the three fields were distinctly unequal. 



Other townships divided their arable into four parts. At 

 Shilbottle the fourth part, which was smaller than the others, 

 apparently had no close connection with them. It was known 

 as " The Fower Farmes called the Head of Shilbotle " and con- 

 tained 200 acres; but its four tenants had together only 56 acres 

 of pasture lying in the other three fields. The latter were known 

 as North, Middle, and South, their areas being 347, 268, and 350 

 acres respectively.^ Were it not for the " Fower Farmes," this 

 di\'ision would wear somewhat the aspect of a three-field town- 

 ship. 



Elsewhere the four fields bore conventional names, but their 

 acres were unequal. The Lesbury fields, which, as we have seen, 

 were in 1567 proposed for division, numbered four in 16 14. Of 

 these the West field, not shown on a map of ten years later, con- 

 tained no acres, while the other three. Northeast field. East field, 

 and South field, were much larger, comprising respectively 395, 

 246, and 287 acres.* No combination here would evolve into 

 anything like a three-field arrangement except the union of West 

 field with East field, and even this, apart from the situation of 

 the two, does not obviate considerable discrepancy. Slightly 

 more symmetrical were the fields of South Charlton in 1620. 

 Three of them included meadow, and the subdivision gave to 

 North field 142 acres of arable and 11 of meadow, to East field 

 i22f acres of arable, to Middle field 58I acres of arable and 38 

 of meadow, to West field 147 acres of arable and 8^ of meadow.^ 

 By combining the arable of East field and Middle field we should 

 get a total only greater by about thirty acres than the area of 

 each of the other fields, a not impossible three-field arrangement. 

 At Lucker the four fields were less amenable to a three-field 



1 History of Northumberland, 451-452, 456. ^ ibjd.^ 156-157. 



' Ibid., V. 416, 427, 429 n. * Ibid., ii. 416 sq. ^ Ibid., 307. 



