THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 38 1 



no reason for interpreting the passage as evidence of the existence 

 of a three-field system. 



Hertfordshire testimony of the thirteenth century thus concurs 

 with that of the sixteenth. Although from the first the county 

 probably had numerous enclosures and considerable woodland, 

 there was doubtless in the more open regions an abundance of 

 open field. This field was, however, irregular in character, the 

 parcels of arable, so far as can be seen, not being grouped by 

 furlongs into two or three large areas. On the contrary, the fields 

 were, as in Surrey, numerous, often curiously named, and pre- 

 sumably small. The origin and affihation of such a field system 

 can best be discussed in connection with similar questions regard- 

 ing the other counties of the lower Thames valley. 



Middlesex and the Chiller ns 



The western half of Middlesex retained much open field until the 

 period of parliamentary enclosure. Slater's list of acts includes 

 the names of nearly all the townships of this part of the county, 

 and considerable of the area tabulated must have been arable. 

 From the eastern half, however, only two townships figure in his 

 enumeration, Enfield and Edmonton. To the latter the enclosure 

 act assigns 1231 acres, but a Jacobean surv^ey makes it clear 

 that not more than 500 of them can have been arable common 

 field. ^ The 3540 acres mentioned in the Enfield act undoubtedly 

 comprised a certain amount of arable, since the reporter to the 

 Board of Agriculture in 1793 bewails the existence of " a large 

 tract of common field land watered by the New River, at present 

 condemned to lie fallow every third year." ^ 



The Jacobean survey of Edmonton just mentioned illustrates 

 well the irregular field system of eastern Middlesex. The village 

 Hes halfway between London and Waltham abbey in the valley 

 of the Lea, not far from the point where the three counties of 

 Hertfordshire, Middlesex, and Essex meet. Most of the numer- 

 ous tenants held a few acres of customary' land, although the 



1 Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 1 10-185. 



2 T. Baird, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Middlesex (London, 

 1793), P- 36. 



