| A. | A. | B. | P. | |||
| East Field | estimation | 75 | measure | 51 | 1 | 25 |
| Middle Field | 58 | 39 | 3 | 36 | ||
| South Field | 103 | 59 | 2 | 13 |
It will be seen at once that the discrepancy between the two sets of figures is not to be fully explained by the supposition that at Whitehill men had measured land by measures differing from our statutory standards[1293]. The size of a ‘two-acres’ (and the land in this instance had been divided chiefly into ‘two-acres’) varied not only from field to field and shot to shot, but within one and the same shot. Each two-acre strip has an equal breadth, but the curving boundaries of the fields make some strips longer than others[1294].
Varying size of the acres.
We turn to the admirable maps of Heyford in Oxfordshire designed in 1606. Here the land is divided among many occupiers and cut up into a vast number of strips, to each of which is assigned its ‘estimated’ and its measured content. Thus we read:—
dim. ac. Jo. Sheres 1. 18
dim. ac. Ric. Elkins 1. 18
dim. ac. Jo. Merry 1. 18.
In this part of this shot a ‘half-acre’ contains 1 R. 18 P. Some of the shots in this village have fairly straight and rectangular boundaries, so that we may, for example, find that many successive ‘half-acres’ contain 1 R. 18 P. But then if we pass to the next shot we shall find 1 R. 28 P. in the ‘half-acre,’ while in a third shot we shall find but 1 R. 8 P. Yet every strip of land is a ‘half-acre’ or an ‘acre’ or a ‘acre and a half’ or a ‘two acres’ or a ‘three acres.’ We see further that when ‘acres’ occur among ‘half-acres’ the strips vary in breadth but not in length.
On a map of Roxton made in 1768 we have the same thing written out in English words. Thus:—
| Eliz. Gardner a half | 0. 1. 32 |
| Carpenter a half | 0. 1. 32 |
| Harris an acre | 0. 3. 24 |
| Carpenter a half | 0. 1. 32 |
| Jam. Gardner an acre | 0. 3. 24 |
| Makepace a half | 0. 1. 34 |