It’s doubtful if the picture previously painted of the medieval open fields lasted for long. Some form of inclosure proceeded in almost all centuries. Starting with the consolidation of the Lords demesne land in medieval times it was followed by inclosures of dubious legality in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries and a whole raft of parliamentary inclosures in the 18th and 19th centuries. As a result the clear picture of an open field manor parish had become considerably smudged by the time of the tithe commutation.
Quite how many manors or parishes were inclosed may never be known accurately. The national figures for inclosure, quoted by Slater in 1905, gives a total of 1278 from the early 1700’s onwards. It shows an uneven pace of change, but omits of course those unofficial inclosures that took place without parliament being involved,
No of Parishes inclosed.
This figure seems to be remarkably low given that there were near enough 12,000 parishes.
In Dorset we can be reasonably certain of one early inclosure. Hutchins notes that at Shrowton [now Shroton aka Iwerne Courtney] “It was situated in a country commodious and plentiful of wood, corn, pasture, &c. Its circuit not above 3 miles and it lay open till 1848, when the common fields were inclosed. The customary tenements were so small, that the tenants not being able to pay the lord’s rent, half of them surrendered their copies to the lord. The rest requested they might use his land so as they paid the rent; and the lord consented that six tenants, chosen and sworn should tread out the lands of the manor and allow how much each tennant should have in order to inclose.”
Tracing other Dorset inclosures is not easy. Several sources are available, the first being Kain’s  book and electronic catalogue. This is primarily concerned with maps and does not include a number of inclosure awards. A second source, rather curiously, was written by the Revd. H F Yeatman, rector at Stock Gaylard and well known [in his day] magistrate. Writing in 1828 on the county rate  he listed 45 parishes that had been inclosed in the previous 50 years or so. Many of these do not appear in Kain but are confirmed in an ‘Index to the local and personal acts 1801-1844’ published by parliament. Even this does not complete the list as at least two inclosures at Evershot and West Knighton are not included in any list but are recorded in the quarter sessions records. A list of known inclosures is given at the end of this section.
No of Parishes inclosed.
In 1833 Boswell notes there were 241 parishes so it might be thought the remaining 115 parishes would be open field parishes but this was not the case. The only work that I have found that looks specifically at Dorset Inclosures was published just before WW2 . The work is limited as Endacott found only 68 inclosure awards but the conclusion that he came to from these was that when the area of the parishes was taken into account some 70% of all the land known to be inclosed in Dorset could not be accounted for under these awards. Even allowing for the revised number of awards that I have used it will be seen that there is a whole chunk of inclosures missing.
If we had been able to look down on the county say between 1837 and 1850 when the Dorset tithe commutations began and ended what would we have seen?
Well fortunately we have the tithe maps to help us. By now the large open field parishes have all but gone – but not quite. Fordington is perhaps the parish closest to a wholly open parish. When John Martin made his tithe map in 1844 there were over 2200 strips or small closes in the common arable fields. The parish was finally inclosed, in 1876 when of the total area of 2749 acres, nearly 90%  acres were still common arable fields, common meadow land and the waste.
The picture is complicated though, certainly more complex than the books would have us believe. Judged by the tithe maps not only were there still numerous parishes with remnants of the common fields but some of these were quite extensive. Typical of these parishes are Cheselbourne and Stratton. The Cheselbourne tithe map of 1840 shows over one thousand three hundred arable strips together with extensive wastes, but in addition there are large areas of inclosed land, all the property of one owner, Lord Rivers. This was very common as the Lords of the Manor were often the first to consolidate their lands and could do so without the need of an act of parliament, so long as the land of the commoners was not affected. The parish was finally inclosed in 1844.
At Stratton and Grimstone the picture is even more complicated. The 1840 tithe map shows many hundreds of strips left in open fields named West, Middle, East, Brewers Ash and Langford fields. There are again large areas occupied by old inclosures but this time they are not owned solely by the lord. There are numerous owners who may own one or more closes together with strips in the open fields. Furthermore some of these narrow strips, usually no more than a half an acre in size, have been inclosed and converted to meadow. The parish survived in this form into the 20th century.
Across all of the tithe maps for Dorset, not just John Martin’s maps, we find a very mixed picture. At a few parishes such as Askerwell, Burlestone, Fordington, Stourpaine, Ashmore, Winterbourne Steepleton and the Isle of Portland have extensive [ > 30% of land area] open arable fields and common waste. Many of these would survive for several years to come. Stratton was not finally inclosed until the 20th century, Askerwell in 1852 Stourpaine in 1859, Ashmore in 1858 and Winterbourne Steepleton in 1861. I cannot say when Burlestone or Portland were finally inclosed but Fordington appears to have been inclosed in the 1870’s.
What is surprising is that parishes with smaller remnants of the open field system abound. Only a handful can be covered here. It must be said that these remnants are relatively small. At Fontmell Magna in 1847 about seventy strips were still uninclosed. At Marnhull, a large parish of over 3500 acres, the tithe map  shows one small area, known as Marnhull Ham , of about 80 acres of meadow land divided up into one hundred strips. The rest of the parish was wholly inclosed by this time but it was not until 1859 that an act was passed to rid themselves of the remainder. On the other hand at Child Okeford, a similarly sized meadow, known as Net Mead  was reprieved in 1845, by the landowners who specifically requested that grazing rights be preserved when the common was inclosed. At Sturminster Newton Castle, ‘inclosed’ by Martin in 1827 the tithe map of 1840 shows five areas of open strips, comprising about a hundred strips of meadow land scattered through the parish and which had survived the inclosure. Sturminster Newton was in fact inclosed twice; the first time in 1827 and then in 1844 an outlying area of common land which had survived at nearby Bagber.
In some parishes all that remained to be seen of the common arable fields were quilletts – surviving selions, still in separate ownership, but within the boundaries of a close belonging to another owner. These are seen extensively in some parishes such as Sherborne and Warmwell and not at all in others. The examples below come from Child Okeford again,
Plot 124 [not numbered here] was fully inclosed and owned by Elizabeth Trenchard the lord of one of the manors in Child Okeford. All 25 acres of the close was occupied by John Rossiter, except the quillets [plots 125-7] which were in owned by 3 different land owners  and occupied by 3 different farmers. The —- hatched delineation indicates they were not inclosed. Unusually this was an arable field. Photographed at DHC by author.
With the exception of those like Stratton, Fordington etc mentioned above the majority of these later inclosures appear to be mainly of the remaining waste of the parish and common meadow. It is clear that by 1837, when the tithe commutations started, most parishes had been inclosed by non parliamentary mechanisms at some earlier and undetermined time.
The small size and shape of many of the closes in these early inclosures suggests that they were simple consolidations of existing strips, probably with the consent of the lord. Even by the 18th century many parishes had been reduced to the common lands only. Evershot itself was inclosed by William Jennings Snr. in 1786 when two hundred acres of common on the East and West Hills were inclosed by agreement. At Rampisham in 1815, another parish where Martin was the surveyor, the act is to inclose the remaining common, the open arable fields having been inclosed long before by methods that left no record. The same was true at Child Okeford and numerous other parishes such as Batcombe, Powerstock, Silton, Lydlinch and Chardstock where the tithe map shows the waste land as the only surviving remnant of the old way.
In some case it is frankly difficult to know what precisely was inclosed. Close analysis of the tithe maps in some of these parishes fails to find any of the features usually associated with an open field system. Any trace of even a few strips of common arable or meadow or even waste are simply not present. At Owermoigne the 1838 tithe map appears to show no trace of anything that could be inclosed and yet it was, by John Martin in 1844. The same could be said of a number of other parishes such as Sturminster Marshall, Tollard Farnham, Church Knowle and Alderholt all of which were inclosed after their tithes had been commuted and none of which show the kind of evidence normally associated with the presence of the open field system at the time of the commutation.
|The Year listed here is one of either
1] The year the bill was enacted.
2] The year of enrolment in the quarter sessions.
|1786||Evershot||Wm Jennings Snr.|
|1793||Tolpuddle||Wm Jennings Snr.|
|1795||Handley [Six Penny]|
|1796||Hinton Martell Gussage All Sts|
|1798||Preston and Sutton Poyntz||Wm Jennings Snr.|
|1802||East Stower [Stour]|
|1803||Leigh||Wm Jennings Jnr. Surveyor.|
|1808||Melbury in Cann|
|1811||Gussage St Michael|
|1813||Gussage St Michael|
|1816||Winterbourne Monkton||Wm Jennings JM|
|1818||Sydling St Nicholas|
|1822||Great Canford and Poole|
|1824||Sydling St Nicholas|
|1828||Sturminster Newton Castle||JM|
|1838||Winfrith Newburgh & Wool|
|1844||Sturminster Newton Bagber|
|1846||Wareham Ldy St Mary|
|1861||Batcombe||1838 Common only|
|1861||Powerstock||1839 Common only|
|1861||Silton||1837 Common only|
|1861||Winterbourne Steepleton||1837 JM Extensive selions and commons|
|1863||East Orchard||No tithe map|
|1866||Lydlynch||1841 Common only|
|1865||Wareham Stoborough Heath|
|1867||East Stoke||Common and occasional selions|
|1870||East Stoke – Stockford Plain and Binegar Plain|
Previous Why inclose?
1 Slater G The English peasantry and the enclosure of common fields 1907
3 Yeatman H. F. An Inquiry into the present state of the existing county rate within the county of Dorset. 1828
4 Progress Of Enclosures In The County Of Dorset In The 18th And Part Of The 19th Centuries. B.Litt. Thesis, Oxford University 1938 Endacott GB
5 Old English: Ham a piece of land typically enclosed by a stream or river. In this case by the River Cole which surrounds it on three sides.
6 Old English: Neat [cow or ox] meadow.
7 Confusingly customary tenants of the manor [copy holders or lease holders for lives] were classed as landowners on tithe maps. The occupiers were thus tenants of the tenants.
Previous Why inclose ?