If anybody knows anything about tithes it is the maps that were produced as a result of the Tithe Commutation act. It was a truly impressive effort for twelve thousand seven hundred and thirty three tithe districts were eventually commuted and all had a map annexed to them. Tithe maps fell into two categories.

1. First class maps. These required a new parochial survey conducted along the lines set out by Lieut. Dawson. The map constructed from these result was then drawn to scale of 3 chains to the inch. Which is to say that 1 inch of map represented 66 yards of real ground. At this scale measurements, taken from the map could be used to check the survey results themselves. This ensured the map was indeed a correct representation of the land surveyed. First class maps were the gold standard of tithe maps but as they required a new survey and it was the landowners who paid for this they were not keen to do so. Martin made no first class maps [though he thought he had] and so we can make no further comment.
2. Second class maps. These made no pretence to accuracy. All of Martin’s maps were second class maps and providing that “three fourths of the landowners in number and value” were agreeable, Clause 35 of the Act allowed the valuer to avoid making a new survey by using “any admeasurement, plan, or valuation previously made of the lands or tithes in question of the accuracy of which they shall be satisfied”. In other words as long as the majority of landowners agreed , any old map could be used.
   

The only clear way for most of us to determine which type of map it is, is to read the endorsement of the tithe commissioners that is written on it. First class maps are certified to be accurate ; second class maps are not.  On occasions close examination of a first class map will show the construction lines used to build it but often these have faded or not been included [which they should have been]. Failing this reference to “The Tithe Maps of England and Wales: A Cartographic Analysis and County-by-County Catalogue” by Kain and Oliver will tell you more about it. This is not widely available but may be found at local history centres.

The origins of Tithe maps.

Although the act required a map to be supplied with the apportionment rather oddly the terms of the act did not require it to be used. The wording of the act required only that any admeasurement OR plan OR valuation or all three could be used, so long as the accuracy was thought to be sufficient. In theory second class maps could be

• brand new
• an old map without modification
• either one old map with modification or several maps which were combined into a new map.

There are two cases where Martin records collecting, or at least attempting to collect, old maps from landowners,

It will be remembered that Lieut. Dawson had stipulated that “If the plan be of old date…or if plans of portions only of the parish be found,” the surveyor was required “to test and combine them into a plan of the entire parish, adding such further detail as may be required.” This must have posed considerable logistical problems as most parishes had a mixture of large and small landowners . If only a few of these had maps, the task of testing and combining them would have been a considerable undertaking and there would still have been large areas of the parish that had been hitherto unmapped. It must have been easier in many cases just to start afresh.

It is difficult to generalise but, considering the Dorset tithe maps overall, there appear to be very few surveyors who can be said to have a distinctive or consistent style. Edward Watts of Yeovil are perhaps the most distinctive but John Martin’s maps are equally recognisable in a more subtle way. If judged in this way we can be confident that Martin never used an old map without first re-drawing it in some measure.

It is doubtful in fact if many surveyors submitted a genuinely ‘old’ map without first redrawing it. The only Dorset map that might not have been redrawn is the map of Durweston done by James Stott. There was only one landowner, Lord Portman, who was also the patron of the church and Stott was probably the estate surveyor. It is crudely drawn with no attempt to adhere to the conventions of tithe maps. There is for example no attempt to delineate the arable, meadow or pasture instead Stott coloured the map denoting the lands of individual tenants and the lords demesne land [in hand].

Very occassionaly it is possible to establish the genealogy of a tithe map and the map of Child Okeford is one of those occasions. Child Okeford had two manors, with the largest belonging to the Trenchard family. In 1826 William Trenchard ordered a survey of his manor known as Child Okeford Superior. The only part of the survey to survive is the book of particulars and naturally enough this does not include the tenures of the other manor in the parish, belonging to the Seymer family [1]. A page from the book is shown below;

This crop shows the entry for Edward Rose. The top line of the entry gives his name and tells us that he inherited the copyhold tenancy from the widow of Robert Rose, almost certainly his mother. On the left are a series of numbers , 73 ,76 ,249 and so on.

Next comes the Description of Premises – the names of the fields- followed by the quality, or type,  of field – arable, meadow or pasture. Then comes the areas of the parcels in acres, roods and perches. In the following column are the lives attached to the tenancy and at the bottom right the annual rent 8s 8d, and the heriot – the best beast – that had to be paid when a new life was admitted to the copyhold.

Note that the plot numbers for the Trenchard estate are not sequential; they do not run 1, 2, 3 etc. When surveys and maps of open field parishes or manors were made the individual parcels of land or strips were always numbered sequentially. The holdings of any individual land owner though were rarely next to each other. Most had strips that were scattered across all the fields in the parish with the consequence that the field book for any particular landowner shows precisely this discontinuous pattern.

Moreover if you examine the whole of the survey there are many numbers missing from it. Child Okeford was uncommon in that it had two manors and numerous private owners ,so the only explanation is that at some time prior to 1826 a survey had been made including the lands of both manors and all the other landowners in the parish and that the plot numbers relate to a survey and map that is now missing.

Fortune sometimes favours the local historian. A few years ago a document was passed to the holder of the village archives in Child Okeford by another villager. It was a black and white copy of a map. The villager had found it in the papers of another villager who had died and left them to her. The original map is lost and the quality of the copy is poor. The title tells us that it was made in 1834 for one of the local farmers, William Wiltshire. Wiltshire owned and rented nearly one hundred acres in the parishbut we have no idea why he wanted a map of the whole parish.

Although the details are very indistinct using digital enhancement the map appears to have been made from a survey conducted by Wm Jennings, although the date of the survey cannot be made out. It is tempting to imagine that the original of this map was the one that accompanied the 1826 survey but we don’t have any evidence for this. Whenever the original for this map was made, the version we have, a copy, was made in 1834. Who made the copy is not known.

We can now say with confidence ;

1. The plot numbers and field names from the 1826 survey are the same as those on the tithe map.
2. The plot numbers on the 1834 map are the same as on the tithe map.
3. Whilst the 1834 map and the tithe map are not precisely identical it is clear that the 1834 map is a link between a much earlier map on which the 1826 survey was based, and the 1840 tithe map.

There are no diary entries for the Child Okeford apportionment so we don’t have any clues as to how much surveying Martin did at Child Okeford, but it is possible that he did none at all. Indeed this may have been the case with any number of surveyors and commutations. Second class maps were never intended to be used as the basis for land registration or legal disputes over boundaries but the Child Okeford one was remarkably durable and it’s use persisted into the 20th century.The Trenchard family eventually sold their manor of Child Okeford Superior to the Portman family and in the late 1880’s was owned by Claud Berkley Portman. In 1906 for personal reasons he sold the manor to his own father, William Henry Berkley Portman for the sum of £45,000.

An abstract of the title to the lands, whilst it does not include a map of the parish,it lists the lands involved in the sale together with their plot number and names. Just four of the one hundred and three plots sold are shown below but these are typical of the whole sale. None of the plot numbers have changed, very occasionally the names change as in plots 44 and 167 and even more rarely the size of the plot differs slightly as in plot 44. None of the plots have changed their use either, a remarkable tribute to the stability of farming in this area.

Plot No.          Name                                              Qualities                                  Area

The accuracy of Tithe maps.

It is easy to forget that a map of any sort is produced for a particular purpose. Within their own time the accuracy of the maps was questioned and on occasions there was undoubted fraud when at least one ‘first class’ map was drawn from an old and as it turned out inaccurate survey. Isambard Kingdom Brunel thought little of them and their utility to him was limited as tithe maps contain no contouring detail which is vital when building a railway.

It is not possible to generalise about accuracy but ‘The Genealogist’ has a very useful feature whereby tithe maps can be overlaid on modern Ordnance survey maps. My experience, at least in the case of John Martin, is that his tithe maps are remarkably accurate when compared with modern maps.

The Anatomy of a Tithe Map.

Once the apportionment and map had been signed off by the landowners, and the assistant tithe commissioners, it was sent to London for final approval by the Tithe Commission.

These maps I term ‘original’ maps. In theory they had to be accompanied by at least two copies of the instrument of apportionment and the annexed map. Digital images of tithe maps have been published by two companies. ‘The Genealogist’ publishes images made by the National Archives of these ‘original’ maps which had been retained in London by the Tithe Commission.  Most of their images are in black and white, although some counties are in the process of being reproduced in colour. This collection covers the whole of the country and includes images of the original instrument of apportionment.

Ancestry, in association with the Dorset History Centre has digitised one of the copy maps and their collection is confined to Dorset tithe maps. They are in colour. Ancestry also publish a transcript of the apportionment but not the amount of rent-charge that was due on each piece of land.

The original maps are of course now out of copyright but the images of them are within copyright and so as to avoid issues the map below is from Wikipedia. The original source of the picture being http://www.llgc.org.uk/en/ , it is taken that this is free of copyright issues. The map shows all of the essential features of a tithe map albeit not in Dorset but St Wollos in Wales.

The Stamp of the Tithe Commission.

When the Tithe Commutation Act was passed things must have seemed simple. A map, produced according to guidelines laid down by Lieut Kearsley Dawson, would be submitted to the Tithe Commission who, after appropriate checks, would certify its accuracy by attaching a seal to it. As we have seen his proposals had to be abandoned and only a small number were produced to his standards. Those parishes that did commission surveys along Dawson’s line were rewarded by the production of a ‘first class’ map whose accuracy could be confirmed by the Tithe Commision and which then received a special seal.

Those maps whose accuracy could not be certified became known as ‘second class’ maps: Whalley commented, “As to these maps, the commissioners have no remark to make.” [2]

In total three versions of the instrument of apportionment and the map were required – the original and two copies. One copy of each was to be lodged with the Registrar of the diocese in which the parish was situated whilst, “the other copy shall be deposited with the incumbent and church or chapel wardens of the parish for the time being, or such other fit persons as the commissioners shall approve, to be kept by them and their successors in office with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish.”

There was considerable to’ing and fro’ing of the maps. At the top left hand corner of most maps there is a stamp applied by the Tithe Commission when it was received in their office. Unfortunately on the published images of the original maps these stamps have all too often been cropped out making extensive analysis difficult. Where they have survived however it is common to see that the original maps have been stamped several times at varying intervals. The Shipton Gorge map, and the Dorchester Holy Trinity original map have no fewer than three stamps on them but most commonly they bear one or two. Four examples are given below.

Clearly then these maps had been received in the Tithe Commission office, some objection was then made to them and they were returned to the surveyor, when sent back to the Commission they were then stamped again. The instructions to surveyors about copying maps was that “The copies may be either made before or after the confirmation of the apportionment, but if made before confirmation they would be subject to any alteration which might be found necessary in the map itself.”

This however begs a question; what grounds could there be for altering a map? Inaccuracy in a first class map would certainly be one but the situation is less clear in the case of a second class map. So long as the valuer, the ATC or local agent and the landowners were all in agreement it is not obvious why a second class map need be changed or even examined by the Commission. It is apparent that despite the act requiring only the valuer and the landowners to be satisfied with the accuracy of the map, the Tithe Commission had other ideas. First class maps were not an issue, everyone knew that they had to be tested if they were to be sealed, but second class maps were another matter. In theory they should not have needed checking at all and yet it seems they were. Sadly we have no indication what the grounds were.

The Cartouche

If there was one area that the map-makers inherent artistry could shine it was the cartouche and Michael Hanson [4] has described the various types that Martin used. Although we have evidence that Martin used stencils to complete some of his maps it is difficult to see that these were used in the cartouches. They must have been great fun to do and some are amazingly complex. Of themselves they fulfilled the simple function of pointing towards true North. [5]

Although there are none present on the St Woollos some tithe districts were not always single areas of land with a continuous boundary. At Belchalwell the parish consisted of five pieces of land that were not contiguous and had to be represented as a map of five ‘islands’ around a central lagoon of land belonging to other parishes. Even stranger were odd pieces of land detached from the main parish often by some miles. These parishes were known as divided parishes and were abolished in the 1870’s. If large enough a separate map might be made, such as at Abbotsbury, Burton Bradstock and Warmwell but if the scale was reduced they could often be included on the main map, tucked away into some convenient area of the map.

Map Title

The map title was another area where an exuberance of style is seen. In this case it is a lithographed copy map but Martin’s own maps were just as exotic. We know that Martin used stencils on his maps as this entry shows.

We also know from the 1841 census that he had in his household his own son Edwin, aged 20, John Pine aged 25 and James Fitzgerald aged 15. It is likely that such lowly tasks, such as the title of the map or cartouche were given to the younger members of the team, who would enjoy experimenting with the mapping techniques they were there to learn.

Finally the dates on the map do not always tie in with the dates on the apportionment. At Bincombe the map is dated 1837 and yet the commutation did not start until until the following year.

Neighbouring parishes.

Around the edge of the map are the names of the neighbouring parishes and rarely these may appear within the body of the map itself if it was a divided parish.

Landowners endorsement.

The early maps, up until 1840, frequently bore a notice as to the date the landowners, or their agents, agreed to adopt the map. The role of signatures on maps will be discussed later but it is important to understand that on original maps all the signatures are the real or genuine signatures of the signer. Some of these are labelled simply “The Mark X of ….” or a written in a crabbed hand, poignant reminders that this was not an age of universal education.

On the copy maps there are signatures but they are not genuine: these I refer to as copy signatures. The landowners endorsement appeared variably on the maps. Evershot and Frome St Quintin were commuted together as, although they were separate villages, Evershot was in the parish of Frome St Quintin [6] and although there was only one instrument of apportionment there were two maps. Both the original maps have the landowners endorsement together with the genuine signatures. So far so good but the copy map at Evershot has no copy signatures whereas the Frome St Quintin map does. At Maiden Newton both original and copy maps have the endorsement with genuine signatures on the original and copy signatures on the copy.

The typical form of endorsement is: “At a parochial meeting of us the undersigned Landowners held at the Acorn Inn in the Town of Evershot in the County of Dorset on Monday the Twenty-seventh day of August 1838 pursuant to Public notice for that purpose given for the Commutation of Tithes within the said Parish: this map or plan having been produced was adopted agreeably to the provisions of the Act of 6th and 7th William IV. [7] Intitled “An Act for the Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales””. This was then followed by the signatures of the landowners or their agents. Martin only records one commutation where he collected signatures. The May entries must have been particularly irksome as his wife was seriously ill at the time.

The endorsement of the Assistant Tithe Commissioners

Once the final draft of the apportionment and map had been prepared they would might be shown to one of the assistant tithe commissioners for approval. He would then indicate this on the map. Some, such as Charles Pym or Robert Page, simply signed and dated the map but Aneurin Owen usually signed ‘Examined and Certified” together with his date and name.

Most of these endorsements probably took place in the parish when the ATC attended a final approval meeting. Occasionally some were signed by Lieut. Dawson who was based in London and appears to have left it rarely. How these came to be endorsed is not known. These can only have been examined after receipt at the Tithe Office and we certainly have evidence for this at Frome Vauchurch as will be seen. Occasionally maps, such as that at Child Okeford, were not signed by an assistant tithe commissioner at all. Assuming all was well and the permission of the landowners had been granted the map would then be sent to the Tithe Office and stamped.

Note also that a scale was always included on the map although it is not usually possible without direct access to the map to know if it was 3 chains to the inch [invariably found on first class maps] or the more usual 6 chains found on second class maps

The endorsement of the Tithe Commissioners

After the instrument of apportionment together with the annexed map had been examined, and the report of the assistant tithe commission on the parish received, the Tithe Commissioners would endorse both the instrument of apportionment and the map. Their endorsement took various forms.

If the map was a first class map it was impressed with the seal of the commissioners and the form of words certified the accuracy of the map. At Church Knowle one of the three Dorset parishes that earned the first class seal, the inscription on the original map reads as follows:

“We the undersigned Tithe Commissioners for England and Wales do hereby certify the accuracy of this map and that it is the Map or Plan referred to in the Apportionment of the Rent Charge in lieu of Tithes in the Parish of Church Knowle in the County of Dorset. In testimony whereof we have hereunto subscribed our respective names and caused our official seal to be affixed this Seventh day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty four.”

Perhaps surprisingly the copies of first class maps were not automatically sealed and having paid for the expense of a survey, sufficient to guarantee a first class map, the landowners must have wondered what they were getting for their money- after all the original map was retained in London.

The problem was simple enough though, for a copy was just that, a copy. The original map had not so much been drawn as constructed from the survey. Copy maps on the other had were usually made by tracing the original, a process which was inherently inaccurate. For most purposes this did not matter but there were occasions when sealed copies of a first class map was required: “Where parties wish the copies to be deposited in the parish chest and bishop’s registry, to be sealed, and made evidence as well as the original maps, the copies must of course be facsimiles of the map itself.” [8]

This seems to indicate that facsimiles were to be made to a higher standard but how is not stated, the most obvious way would be for it to be constructed in the same was as the original. [9] 

At Beer Hackett one of the other First Class maps in Dorset, although not one of John Martin’s, the wording on the original map is

“We the undersigned Tithe Commissioners for England and Wales do hereby Certify the Correctness of this map and that it is the Map or Plan referred to in the Apportionment of the Rent Charge in lieu of Tithes in the Parish of Beer Hackett…..”.

The copy map however is worded slightly differently,

“We the undersigned Tithe Commissioners for England and Wales do Certify this to be a Correct Copy of the Map or Plan referred to in the Apportionment of the Rent Charge in lieu of Tithes in the Parish of Beer Hackett…..”

The ‘Correct copy’ introduces yet another term into the equation. Was a correct copy the same as a  facsimile ? Both original and copy maps bear the seal of the commissioners and importantly both were signed with the original signatures of the commissioners. You might think that the original and copy maps would be identical but despite this the two maps differ. The cartouches are different and there is another signature on the copy map, that of Aneurin Owen the ATC,but unlike the commissioners signatures it is not original.

At Church Knowle and Steeple, the last of the three Dorset first class maps, the landowners clearly did not feel the need for sealed copies and as a consequence they are not. Their endorsements are no different to the copies of second class maps.

Signatures.

Signatures have a particular significance. Their primary purpose is to give legal certitude to the thing to which they are attached; in the historical context their prime importance, when attached to maps, is in the attribution of the map to a particular map-maker.

Blamire and Buller’s real signatures on an original map [left] and their ‘signatures’ on a copy map [right].

The signatures shown above left are of William Blamire and Thomas Wentworth Buller two of the Tithe Commissioners. The third, the Revd. Richard Jones is less commonly found. It will immediately be seen that they differ from each other which is hardly surprising as they were made by different people. The signatures on the left are the genuine signatures of the men concerned. On the right side however it is obvious that the hand that wrote them is the same

Signatures on original maps and those copies of first class maps that were required to be sealed were always the real signatures of the commissioners. On copy maps however the signatures are clearly written by the same hand, that of the copyist and no attempt has been made to mimic the genuine signatures. They were intended only to indicate who had signed the original award. They had none of the legal implications that a genuine signature carried.

By the time they arrived at the Tithe Commission the original tithe maps had been signed by the valuer[s] and surveyor [if the two were different], sometimes the landowners and sometimes the local assistant tithe commissioner]. The situation with the copy maps is different. The copy maps probably had only one signature on them- the genuine signature of John Martin. A moments reflection will reveal that the copy maps could not at this stage have had any other copy signatures on them. How could the copy map have had a copy commissioners endorsement when the original had not yet been signed? Once the original map had been signed by the commissioners the copy maps could then receive the copy signatures applied at the commission.

Supplementary signatures

The signatures of the assistant tithe commissioners were applied to the body of the map, but on some maps other initialised signatures may be found. The usual position for these supplementary signatures is the lower right corner. Usually these signatures and dates are a day or two after the map was stamped by the Tithe Office. It is likely therefore that this was an assistant tithe commissioner examining it in London.

On John Martin’s maps at Belchalwell, Burton Bradstock, Charminster, East Chelborough, Cheselbourne, Child Okeford, Compton Vallence, Corfe, Dorchester Holy Trinity, Fordington, Manston, Walditch, Witherstone Winterborne Monkton, Winterborne Steepleton, there is another signature. This is usually in the margin as in the example above but on two occasions it is found on the scale bar. The signature comes in two forms “exd J Pyne” and “exd J P”. Hanson [10] examining the diocesan copy maps believes that the xd JP means executed by John Pyne and concluded that these maps were ‘made’ by him. This is a plausible explanation.

Internal Detail

Suffice it to say that Lieut. Dawson leaving little to chance had prepared a schemata of symbols and conventions that he wanted used. Arable land was a pale yellow/khaki colour, pasture a darkish green whilst meadow was a light green. Coppices were represented by small smudges whilst woodlands were larger smudges with trunks attached. Hop grounds were a pale yellow background with what look like little teepees in black. Dwelling houses were drawn in red and farm buildings and offices in black. Roads were coloured in a red/brown colour but rough cart tracks through fields or commons were displayed ===== thus. These recommendations were often not adhered to. Fields for examples that were hedged were more often shown as plain lines rather than lines with a depiction of the hedge on the owners side. Water mills rarely show the little water wheel he recommended, nor did most smithies have an Ω symbol over their outline. Sadly I have not found any half moon signs [silver mine] or O [gold mines] in the Dorset Maps.

Next        List of Commutations under the Tithe Commutation Act

Previous The Instrument of Apportionment