No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009
This return is plainly a mere fragment. The page on the Lansdowne MS. is without a heading and is bound up between the Isle of Wight and part of Staffordshire. Some of the small inclosures recorded would be with a view to future building, and altogether these entries, which seem principally to refer to the east side of London, are of little value as enabling us to estimate the magnitude of the agricultural revolution. As towns increase in size, fresh areas of land are naturally taken for accommodation land by butchers & c. Such areas would be returned as conversions to pasture. The following extract is interesting in this connexion.
Page 252 note 1 Holinshed's, Chron. vol. iii. p. 599. (London, 1808.)Google Scholar
page 257 note 1 See Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. 1892, p. 175.
page 267 note 1 The MS. does not give the Hundreds, which are assigned in the statistical tables in order to facilitate comparison with other counties, and to give an indication of the areas dealt with.
page 270 note 1 vito struck out. xxvij° interlined and struck out. Septembris struck out.
page 270 note 2 xxijdo struck out.
page 273 note 1 ‘In iure monasterii sui’ is here struck out.
page 273 note 2 MS. torn.
page 273 note 3 xiij8 struck out.
page 277 note 1 MS. ‘Edũs.’
page 278 note 1 Blank in MS.
page 282 note 1 This excludes the thirty-two acres in the first inclosure at Thornebury which we are expressly told were held as pasture together with ninety-six acres arable. In either case, whether the thirty-two acres are excluded or not, the calculation is not materially varied.
page 282 note 2 This sufficiently explains why no attempt is made to give a table of the areas of inclosures, as was done in the case of Norfolk.
page 288 note 1 The MS. does not give Ihe Hundreds. See p. 267 supra, note 1.
page 289 note 1 ‘Barmeston’ struck out.
page 295 note 1 ‘Sexaginta’ struck out.
page 295 note 2 MS. torn.
page 296 note 1 ‘Marmaduco’ struck out.
Page 312 note 1 ‘Apte’ struck out.
Page 319 note 1 ‘Willelmus’ struck out.
Page 323 note 1 At the top of this page the above entry of ‘henricus flowler’ is recopied, but struck out, with a note in the margin ‘Vacat quia anten.’
Page 325 note 1 ‘Julii’ struck out.