SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY stated that two-thirds of the arable land might be sown in one year ; this was the case in Ketton/^ Essendine," Whissendine/* Chpsham," and Gun- thorpe/° and nowhere have we found any trace of a two-field system." Many of the demesne lands lay beside the lands in villeinage in the open fields, and the lord of a manor was expected to conform equally with his tenants to the agricultural customs implied by a three-field system. The land lying fallow was held in common, and was used for grazing purposes, each person giving up for the time being his individual right to certain strips. Deviations from this custom were very rare, and when made roused much jealousy in the agricultural community. In a memorandum of the time of Edward III there is mention of a complaint made to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster concerning Thomas Hotot, lord of Gunthorpe, who had been letting out his lands in the common fields to divers tenants, and allowing them to be inclosed during the time of fallow, so that others, including the church of St. Peter at Westminster, were deprived of their rights of common. ^^ Inclosures of land not lying in the common fields were frequently made, even by owners of land within the king's forests, but for this latter special licence was always required. The records concerning Forest Proceedings show that licence to assart was frequently given ; such assarts when sown with grain were called imbladanienta and the owner of the assart had to pay to the king, for every crop of wheat sown, u., and for every crop of oats, 6^." Owing to the richness of the pasture-land in Rutland wool was a large source of wealth to those who had a right to graze their sheep on the pastures of the county. In 1337 the price of Rutland wool, as fixed by Parliament, was '] marks the sack, but in 1343 it was fixed for three years at 10 marks the sack,*° this being above the average price throughout England. The annual value of meadow-land was, on the whole, high also. At Emping- ham,^' Essendine,^^ Ryhall,*** Little Casterton ^* and other manors the yearly value was is. per acre, and this seems to have been a usual one, but at some other places, as Greetham *' and Barrow,*' for example, the value was as high as 2J-. 6d'., while at Barrowden " there was meadow worth y. the acre. At Whissendine there was some meadow worth only d. per acre ; but this is accounted for by the fact that the land was very often inundated by water, and the crops destroyed.*^ The yearly value of arable land varied from 4^. to IJ-. %d. per acre.^'* Thus at Oakham the price was s. 8^.,'° at Langham 12^.," at Hardwick lo^/.," at Greetham,^* Barrowden,'* and Ketton " 6^., " Inq. p.m. 5 Edw. Ill (2nd nos.), no. 103. " Ibid. 8 Edw. Ill (ist nos.), no. 66. " Ibid. 10 Edw. Ill (ist nos.), no. 33. " Ibid. 26 Edw. Ill (ist nos.), no. 51. '° Westm. Abbey, Rut. Doc. parcel 2, no. 20637. " In Wiltshire instances of a two-field system are as numerous as those of a three-field system. '* Westm. Abbey, Rut. Doc. parcel 2, no. 20637. ■' Forest Proc. Exch. T.R. 249, m. I. '» Cat. Close, 1337-9, p. 149 ; Pari. R. ii, 1383. " Inq. p.m. Hen. Ill, file 21, no. 16. Ibid. 8 Edw. Ill (ist nos.), no. 66. Ibid. 9 Ric. II, no. 54. " Ibid. lo Edw. Ill (ist nos.), no. 47. " Ibid. 9 Edw. II, file 49, no. 29. ^ Ibid, file 47, no. 49. " Ibid, file 49, no. 30. " Ibid. 23 Edw. Ill (2nd part), no. 153. Compare with Wiltshire, where arable land was frequently as low as zd. the acre, and rarely higher than dd. " Mins. Accts. bdle. 964, no. 4. Ibid. " Inq. p m. 9 Edw. II, file 48, no. 6. " Ibid, file 49, no. 29. " Ibid, file 49, no. 30. " Ibid. 5 Edw. Ill (2nd nos.), no. 70. I 217 28
