364 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 



or two apiece in these areas; Burgcroft appears but twice; the 

 first holding had ten parcels in Emiersh. the others only two each. 

 The location of many parcels in " crofts " suggests a subdivision 

 of old enclosures rather than normal open field. Considered 

 together, therefore, the Egham terriers not only fail to evince 

 any trace of a three-field system, but even seem to be prohibitive 

 of such an arrangement. 



Since complete surveys are always more convincing than ter- 

 riers, any comprehensive evidence of this sort available from 

 Surrey is important. Somewhat late, to be sure, is the descrip- 

 tion of Banstead, which in 1680 pictures Httle of the township un- 

 enclosed.' Five of the tenants were then possessed of a few acres 

 vaguely assigned to " the common field," the area of which proves 

 to have been only about 24 acres. The fields may to some ex- 

 tent have, been reduced in size, since we find mention of "Upper, 

 Middle, and Lower Common field Closes "; but it is not clear that 

 they had ever been large. 



Another survey, earlier by three-quarters of a century, re- 

 cords all the holdings at Byfleet and Bisley.^ Byfleet, a town- 

 ship adjacent to the river Wey, was then entirely enclosed. At 

 Bisley there is note of a few small common fields, the combined 

 area of w^hich was about 100 acres and nearly all of which fell 

 within a dozen copyholds.' Most acres were in Neltrow and 

 Widcroft, a few being in Burcroft. Since in nearly all of the 

 copyholds the enclosed area exceeded in amount that which was 

 open, from an agricultural point of view it mattered little that 



1 H. C. M. Lambert, History of Banstead in Surrey (Oxford, 1912), pp. 194-216. 



2 Land Rev., M. B. 203, £f. 80-133. 



' Their areas in acres may be tabulated as follows: — 



