Menu Home

Tithe Maps

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.

First class maps were of course to be preferred and just over two thousand of these were produced but as Martin did not make any of these no further comment can be made other than to say that these had to be new and constructed from a survey done, at the time and specifically for the purposes of the act.

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 theory , although the act required a map to be supplied curiously it 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
  • an old map with modification.

In practice most second class maps were probably derived from old maps and then redrawn. All of John Martin’s tithe maps bear a strong resemblance to each other and it is almost certain that he never used an old map without modification and redrawing. There are two cases where Martin records collecting, or at least attempting to collect old maps from landowners,

22nd August 1838 Charminster Commutation Attending at Charminster to receive Maps of Landowners When Mr James Henning & Mr Sherrin did not produce theirs
13th November Sydling St Nicholas commutation

 

Attending at Sydling to receive Maps 2-2-0

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. Charminster was a large parish with seven landowners having holdings over one hundred acres even if only a few of these had maps, the task of testing and combining them would have been a considerable undertaking.

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 have been submitted without redrawing 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 delineate the arable, meadow or pasture instead Stott has coloured the map by tenant and demesne land [in hand].

If Martin appears not to have used pre-existent maps ‘as is’ but equally as the history of the Child Okeford tithe map shows  sometimes at least he redrew old maps with only minimal modifications.

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;

CO Survey 1826

This crop shows the entry for Edward Rose. The top line of the entry gives his name and tells us that he inherited the tenancy from the widow of Robert Rose, almost certainly his mother. On the left are the plot numbers. Next comes the Description of Premises – the names of the fields. Then comes the quality or type of fields, arable, meadow or pasture and their area 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. In an open field system each tenant had numerous strips in different parts of the manor and we would not expect them to do so. But Child Okeford was uncommon in that it was two manors. The only explanation for the discontinuity is that at some time prior to 1826 a survey had been made which was common to both manors. Identifying fields with the same names on both the tithe map and the survey it is found that not only the names but also the plot number and area are the same. It is highly likely therefore that there was in existence a map and some other survey encompassing all of the estates lands in the parish and that this map was the basis for all subsequent maps.

The next document we have was passed to the holder of the village archives in Child Okeford by a villager. It is 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 for one of the local farmers, William Wiltshire, in 1834. Wiltshire owned and rented nearly one hundred acres in the parish; we don’t know why he wanted a map of the whole parish.

CO Wiltshire Map

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.

CO Wiltshire Map Crop

Comparing this map with the tithe map it is clear that they are not precisely identical. The outlying part of the parish known as Gobson Common is in a slightly different place, the orientation of the Wiltshire map is more nearly north than the tithe map and there are subtle differences in the shapes of the roads and field outlines. Nevertheless this map is a link between an 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, suggesting that it was based on an earlier but accurate survey. The usefulness of the map survived the newly published 6” to the mile OS maps.

Plot No.          Name                                              Qualities                                  Area

1826

1840

1906

1826

1840

1906

1826

1840

1906

1826

1840

1906

                                   

44

44

44

Piddles

Peddle Mead

Piddlemead

Meadow

Meadow

Meadow

2

10

2

10

2

25

167

167

167

Stones Ridgeway

Soreland

Soreland

Meadow

Meadow

Meadow

3

1

5

3

1

5

3

1

5

232

232

232

Greenway

Greenway

Greenway

Pasture

Pasture

Pasture

12

2

31

12

2

31

12

2

31

233

233

233

Lower Stoney Lands

Lower Stoney Lands

Lower Stoney Lands

Meadow

Meadow

Meadow

4

16

4

16

4

16

In 1906 one hundred and three plots of land in Child Okeford were sold by Claud Berkley Portman to his 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, lists the lands involved in the sale together with their plot number and names. In the eighty years following the 1826 survey we find the same plot numbers, the same qualities and the same areas referring to almost exactly the same field names.

Just four of the one hundred and three plots are shown above but the remaining ninety nine or so differ little from one another. None of the plot numbers change but occasionally the names change as in plots 44 and 167. Very rarely the size may differ slightly as in plot 44.

Given the quality of the survey and the trust the landowners had in it it would not be a great surprise to find that it had also been used in the Poor Law assessment although there is no evidence for this.

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. Reproductions of tithe maps have been published by two companies. ‘The Genealogist’ publishes images made by the National Archives of the original maps. Most 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, publish one of the copy maps and their collection is confined to Dorset tithe maps. They are in colour. Ancestry 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.

Newport_Tithe_Map stamp

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. Some parishes did commission surveys along Dawson’s line and they were rewarded by the production of a ‘first class’ map whose accuracy could be confirmed and that could be sealed. 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 and, emphasising the centrality of the parish in government, “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.”

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. And yet the evidence is that they were.

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.

Parish Date Stamps on Original Map Date Stamps on Copy Map
Dorchester Holy Trinity 9th June 1841

 

30th June 1841

18th December 1841

18th December 1841
Toller Fratrum 1st November 1841

 

31st December 1841

31st December 1841
Winterborne Monkton 19th February 1841

 

18th December 1841

18th December 1841
Melbury Bubb 25th June 1841

 

12th November 1841

12th November 1841

A pattern emerges; leaving aside the Somerset and Wiltshire copy maps which have not been examined only three Dorset copy maps depart from this pattern of having only one date stamp. Maiden Newton and Frome Vauchurch have no stamp at all [3] and Oborne has two. The date on the copy map is, with these exceptions, always the same as the last stamp on the original map. Whalley noted that “If the draft of the apportionment and the map annexed to it are returned to this office for confirmation without any copies of the map, the original map cannot again be parted with, and the two copies, which will ultimately be required, must be made in this office.”

The only reason for the original map to be stamped more than once is if they had been returned to the surveyor for correction and he had then returned them to the Commission. It presupposes that there was only one ‘original’ map –ever. As it was this map that had been approved by the landowners it would not have been possible simply to replace it with another. 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.

The only logical explanation for the original maps to bear the commissions stamp more than once is if they had been returned to the surveyor for some form of correction. This may not necessarily have been because any particular problem as such. In June 1939 he,

20th June 1838 Sent the Draft Apportionment & Stratton map to London

The fact he refers to it as “the draft” suggests that he never intended it to be the definitive version but was submitting it for review before finalising it. It clearly found his way back to him to correct the apportionment as he sent it back again in August of that year. Unfortunately the original map has been cropped so the number of stamps on it cannot be checked. The copy map on Ancestry has only one stamp.

17th August 1838 Stratton Commutation altering Draft Apportionment the whole day and packed the same with Map for London £2.2.0

The Warmwell commutation in 1845 gives a further example. Martin intended to make a first class map of part of the parish for he tells us so.

30th June 1845 Haymaking in Poor Close and the Land and sent the Warmwell Map & Apportionment with the 1st Class map of Warmwell Field to London”

The original map has two stamps upon it, the first has been partially cropped out so the date cannot be read, Martin made another entry on the 10th September,

10th September 1845 Sent off the Dewlish and Warmwell Engrossments and Maps to London and preparing for Railroad works

Clearly it must have been returned to him otherwise he could not send it off again . The diary entry is for the 10th and the second stamp on the original map is for the 11th September which shows if nothing else how effective the mail coach was even in 1845. The copy map bears only one stamp – 11th September.

Returning maps to the surveyor could only be done though if the copy maps accompanied the original. As these bear only one stamp two possibilities arise. Either they were never stamped on being first received in the Tithe Commission and were returned as well to be corrected, or they were returned to the surveyor to be completely drawn afresh, only being stamped when the Commission were satisfied with the original and the copies made from it. If it sounds implausible that the copy maps would be so expendable it should be remembered that the majority of these were probably drawn on paper. The landowners had to provide the original on vellum or parchment but would not have been prepared to pay for the copies to be made on this. At the same time we should recall that a major part of Martin’s time was spent pasting paper for maps and in 1841 at the height of the commutations he also had three “young men” as he called them living in his household and assisting him. What better way to keep them occupied than making the copy maps?

Note the comment that “If the draft of the apportionment and the map annexed to it are returned to this office for confirmation without any copies of the map, the original map cannot again be parted with” This must have occasioned great difficulty and begs the question as to who a map in London could be remedied – if needs be- by a surveyor in Dorset say. It would probably have paid to produce two copies just for the convenience of being able to easily correct the map.

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

Newport_Tithe_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.

12th Nov 1838

Writing to Mr Madeley for stencil Letters &c

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. Is it too difficult to imagine that the more lowly tasks, such as the title of the map were given to the younger members of the team, who would enjoy experimenting with the mapping techniques they were there to learn?

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 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 endorsement 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””. 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.

19th February 1838

Stratton Commutation Attending at Stratton when the Map was signed by the Proprietors

7th May 1838 Stratton Commutation Journey to Stratton getting more signatures to the Map and Valuing the Wracklefords for dividing the Rent Charges between the Farms
8th May 1838 Stratton Commutation Journey to Stratton taking up the Lots in Broad Mead and getting more Signatures to the Map and waited on Mr C Henning at Dorchester respg copy of agreement

The endorsement of the Assistant Tithe Commissioners

Newport_Tithe_Map surrveyor

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.

The endorsement of the Tithe Commissioners

Newport_Tithe_Map commissioners endorsement

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. 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. A copy map had in many cases simply been traced from the original. 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] How these facsimiles were to be made is not stated; the most obvious use of a sealed map would be under the parochial assessment act but Whalley’s phrasing is curious as it seems to imply that there were different levels of accuracy when copying maps, a facsimile being drawn in the same was as the original rather than simply being copied. [9] If this is the case it did not necessarily extend to minor details.

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’ indicates that this is 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. Despite this the two maps are not identical. The cartouches are different and the only other signature on the copy map, that of Aneurin Owen the ATC, is not original.

At Church Knowle and Steeple, the last of the three 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.

The original version of second class maps are endorsed:

“We the undersigned Tithe Commissioners for England and Wales do hereby certify this to be the map or plan referred to in the apportionment of the rent-charge in lieu of tithes in the parish of xxxx in the County of Dorset as witness our hand”.

Underneath which are the genuine signatures of the Tithe Commissioners. The copies of second class maps are endorsed in a slightly different form:

“We the undersigned Tithe Commissioners for England and Wales do hereby certify this to be a copy of the map or plan referred to in the apportionment of the rent-charge in lieu of tithes in the parish of xxxx in the County of Dorset as witness our hands”.

There is at this point however a difference from the original in that the copyist inserts the word [signed] and then come the copy signatures of the commissioners.

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 original Blamire Copy

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

Newport_Tithe_Map supp 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.

Tithe-map-symbols_1 Tithe Map 2

Next        List of Commutations under the Tithe Commutation Act

Previous The Instrument of Apportionment

 


1 There were two manors in Child Okeford the other being owned by the Seymer family. Strangely this survey, undertaken for the William Trenchard, is to be found in the Seymer archive at Dorset History Centre.

2 The Tithe Act and the whole of the Tithe Amendment Acts G H Whalley 2nd ed 1848

3 Nor does Wooton Fitzpaine but I have excluded this parish as I am not convinced it was mapped by Martin.

4 M Hanson Attribution of Dorset Tithe Maps Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries 2016

5 See The Perfect Survey

6 Although see also the section on his church work.

7 Until 1963 laws were dated according to Regnal year and what was called the chapter or session. William IV’s reign began in June 1830 so the 6th and 7th year were 1836/1837.

8 Whalley ibid

9 See the section Perfect Survey

10 Hanson M J Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries vol 38 part 386 Sept 2017.