to apportion, and other causes of delay, may prolong a few of these cases.
Still, we see ground for expecting that we shall get through this work by
August, 1851.20 In Kent, with one or two
exceptions, they did achieve this aim.
Fig 1 and Fig
2 show the distribution of apportionments and
maps which fall into various time categories. The maps highlight facts
which have important consequences for reconstructions of the Kent
landscape based upon tithe surveys. They show clearly that a majority of
surveys were carried out in the three years, 1839, 1840 and 1841, i.e. c.
1840. But, there were often differences, sometimes of ten years or
more, between the dates of survey of adjoining parishes. For example,
within five miles of Canterbury, apportionments of rentcharges were
carried out over a fifteen-year period from 1837 to 1852. Comparison of
Fig 1 and Fig 2 also shows that the apportionments of some parishes were
confirmed many years after the maps were made.
The Kent apportionments are of the standard form
described by Prince.21 Before they are used as a source
to reconstruct elements of the landscape, c. 1840, some assessment
of their accuracy must be made. In particular, three questions may be
asked. Firstly, how reliable are the summaries of parish land-use given in
the preambles to the schedules of apportionment? Secondly, are the
names entered in the ownership
and occupation columns those of the true owners and occupiers of land?
Thirdly, what were the criteria upon which land was classified according to
There is considerable doubt about the accuracy of the summary
land-use statistics given in the tithe apportionments.22 In
many cases, they are estimates and so inaccuracy can occur through
misestimation. Further, the summaries often refer to a time earlier than the
date of award and sometimes only include titheable land. The date of
confirmation of the agreement or award for commutation is inscribed on the
first page of the tithe apportionment. However, the date of the land-use
summaries is rarely recorded in the apportionment. Occasionally, it is
stated in the tithe file. For example, the summary for Folkestone was taken
from a survey made in 1830, while at Midley it was computed from the tithe
map.23 More commonly, the summaries are prefaced by
statements such as, ‘by recent survey’, ‘by actual survey’, ‘by
new survey’, or ‘by admeasurement’.24 Other statements
suggest that some
20 P.P.8(H.C.), xxii (1849),
21 21 Prince, op.
cit., in note 8.
22 Kain, op. cit., in
note 11, 93—102.
23 P.R.O. I.R.18/3603,
23 P.R.O. I.R.18/3560,