Chapter XIII: XIV XV XVI (4)

One word to explain that the apparent rudeness with which small figures are treated is not due to any persuasion that they may be safely disregarded, but is rather the natural outcome of a partitionary method of taxation. Little quantities are lost in the process. It is known that a certain hundred should have, for example, 80 hides and a certain vill 5 hides: but when you come to add up the particulars you can not bring out these round figures, perhaps because many years ago a small error was made by some one when an estate of 2-3/4 hides was being divided into 7 shares. If a mistake be made, it can never be corrected; the landowner who has once or twice paid for 47 acres will refuse to pay for 48 and will tell you that the deficient acre does not lie on his land.

[Result of the evidence.]

The ignes fatui which dance over the survey of Middlesex and the Geld Inquests of the south-western counties have for a while led us from our straight path. We have seen that in Cambridgeshire the equation 1 H. = 4 V. = 120 A. is employed on at least twenty occasions. Now as to the rest of England it must at once be confessed that we have no such convincing evidence. In many counties acres of arable land are but rarely mentioned; parcels of land which geld for less than a hide are generally expressed in terms of hides and virgates; we read, for example, not of so many acres, but of the ninth part of a hide or of two third parts of a virgate. Thus we are compelled for the more part to fall back upon the presumption that the treasury has but one mode of reckoning for the whole of England.

[Evidence from Essex.]

But we would not rest our case altogether upon probability. In Essex we find one fairly clear case in which our equation is used[1569]. Sometimes, again, we read that a tract of land is, or gelds for, or defends itself for _x_ hides and _z_ acres, or for _x_ hides, _y_ virgates and _z_ acres. Now in any entry which takes the first of these forms we have some evidence that _z_ acres are less than one hide, and from any entry which takes the second of these forms we may infer that _z_ acres are less than one virgate. Of course from such a statement as that '_A_ holds 90 or 115 or 240 acres' we draw no inference. It is common enough in our own day to speak of things costing thirty shillings or eighteen pence. But we never speak of things costing one pound and thirty shillings, or one shilling and eighteen pence, and we should require much proof before we thought so meanly of our ancestors as to suppose that they habitually spoke in this clumsy fashion.

Let us use this test. Happily in Essex we very frequently have a tract of land described as being _x_ hides and _z_ acres.

Now we read of

a half hide and 30 acres[1570],
a hide and a half and 31 acres[1571],
a half hide and 35 acres[1572],
a half hide and 37 acres[1573],
a hide and a half and 40 acres[1574],
a hide and a half and 45 acres[1575],
a half hide and 45 acres[1576],
two hides and a half and 45 acres[1577],
a half hide and 48 acres[1578],
_x_ hides and 80 acres[1579],
nine hides and 82 acres[1580].

We have here cited twenty instances in which, as we think, the hide exceeds 60 acres (we might have cited many others) and twelve in which it exceeds 80 acres. We might further adduce instances in which our record speaks of a virgate and 10 acres, a virgate and 15 acres, and even of a virgate and 20 acres[1581], and when we read of two hides less 30 acres and two hides less 40 acres[1582] we infer that a hide probably has not only more but considerably more than the 30, 40 or 48 acres that are allowed to it by Kemble and Eyton. Our argument is based on the belief that men do not habitually adopt extremely cumbrous forms of speech. From a single instance we should draw no inference, and therefore when we just once read of 'three hides and a half and 80 acres' we do not infer that 80 acres are less than half a hide[1583].

[Evidence from Essex continued.]

But more can be made of these returns from Essex. We will take a large number of tracts of land described in the formula '_x_ hides and _z_ acres'; we will observe the various numbers for which _z_ stands, and if we find some particular number frequently repeating itself we shall be entitled to argue that this number of acres is some very simple fraction of a hide. We will take at hazard 100 consecutive entries which contain this formula--'_x_ hides + _z_ acres,' where _x_ is either an integral number or 1/2. The result is that in 37 cases _z_ is 30, in 12 it is 15, in 8 it is 40; then 35 and 20 occur 5 times; 80, 50, 45, 37, 18, 10 occur thrice, and 38 and 15-1/2 twice; eleven other numbers occur once apiece. There can we think be but one explanation of this. The hide contains that number of acres of which 30 is the quarter, 40 the third, 15 the eighth[1584].

[Further evidence.]

But Essex, it must be confessed, lies next to Cambridgeshire, and for the rest of England we have less evidence. Still there are entries which make against any theory which would give to the hide but 30, 40 or 48 acres. In Hertfordshire we read of 'a hide and a half and 26 acres[1585].' In the same county we read of 'a half virgate and 10 acres,' and this seems to tell of a hide of at least 88 acres[1586]. In Gloucestershire we read of a manor of one hide and are told that 'in this hide, when it is ploughed, there are but (_non sunt nisi_) 64 acres of land,' whence we may draw the inference that such an acreage was unusually small[1587]. We pass from Mercia into Wessex. In Somersetshire we read of 'three virgates and a half and 5 acres[1588],' in Dorset of 'three virgates and a half and 7 acres[1589],' in Somerset of 'one and a half virgates and 8 acres[1590].'

[Acreage of the fiscal carucate.]

To prove that the fiscal carucate was composed of 120 (fiscal) acres is by no means easy. If, however, we have sojourned for a while in Essex and then cross the border, we can hardly doubt that in East Anglia the carucate bears to the acres the relation that is borne by those hides among which we have been living. Norfolk and Suffolk are carucated counties, but while in the other carucated counties it is usual to express the smaller quantities of land in terms of the bovate (8 bovates making one carucate) and to say nothing of acres, in East Anglia, on the other hand, it is uncommon to mention the bovate--in Suffolk we may even find the virgate[1591]--and men reckon by carucates, half-carucates and acres. We allow the description of Suffolk to fall open where it pleases and observe a hundred consecutive cases in which a plot of land (as distinguished from meadow) is spoken of as containing a certain number of acres. In 22 cases out of the hundred that number is 60, in 8 it, is 30, in 7 it is 20, in 5 it is 40, in 5 it is 15; no other number occurs more than 4 times, and yet the numbers that appear range from 100 to 2. We have tried the same experiment on two hundred cases in Norfolk; in 28 cases the number of acres was 30, in 16 cases it was 60, in 13 it was 40, in 13 it was 16, in 12 it was 20, in 10 it was 80, in 9 it was 15, though the numbers ranged from 1 to 405. Surely the explanation of this must be that 60 acres are half a carucate, that 30 acres are a quarter, that 40 acres are a third, 20 a sixth, 15 an eighth. We have made many similar experiments and always with a similar result; wherever we open the book we find plots of 60 acres and of 30 acres in rich abundance. We use another test. When land is described by the formula '_x_ carucatae et _z_ acrae,' what values are assigned to _z_? We find 40 very commonly, 42, 45, 50, 60 (but this is rare, for it is easier to say '_x_-1/2 carucates' than '_x_ carucates and 60 acres') 68, 69, 80 (at least four times), 81, and 100[1592]. On the one hand, then, we have a good deal of evidence that the carucate contains more than 80 acres, some evidence that it contains more than 100 acres, and some that it does not contain many more, for no case have we seen in which _z_ exceeds 100. Perhaps in Norfolk the figure 16 occurs rather more frequently than our theory would expect, but 16 is two-fifteenths of 120, and the figures 32 and 64 occur but rarely. Also it must be confessed that in Derbyshire we hear of 'eleven bovates and a half and eight acres,' also of 'twelve bovates and a half and eight acres[1593].' These entries, to use an argument which we have formerly used in our own favour, seem to imply that half a bovate is more than eight acres and would therefore give us a carucate of at least 144. We can only answer that, though men do not habitually use clumsy modes of reckoning, they do this occasionally[1594].

[Acreage of the fiscal sulung.]

Of the Kentish sulung very little can be discovered from Domesday. Apparently it was divided into 4 yokes (_iuga_)[1595] and the yoke was probably divided into 4 virgates. We have indeed one statement connecting acres with sulungs which some have thought of great importance. 'In the common land of St. Martin [i.e. the land which belongs to the _communitas_ of the canons of St. Martin] are 400 acres and a half which make two sulungs and a half[1596].' Thence, a small quantity being neglected, the inference has been drawn that the Kentish sulung was composed of 160 acres, while some would read '400 acres and a half' to mean 450 acres and would so get 180 acres for the sulung[1597]. But the entry deals with one particular case and it connects real acres with rateable units:--the canons have 400-1/2 or more probably 450 acres, which are rated at 2-1/2 sulungs. If we passed to another estate, we might find a different relation between the fiscal and the real units. Kent was egregiously undertaxed and as a general rule its fiscal sulung will have many real acres. Turning to the cases in which the geldability of land is expressed in terms of sulungs and acres, or yokes and acres, we can gather no more than that the sulung is greater than 60 acres, so much greater that '3 sulungs less 60 acres[1598]' is a natural phrase, and that the half-sulung is greater than 40[1599] and than 42 acres[1600]. We may suspect that the Exchequer was reckoning 120 (fiscal) acres to the sulung but can not say that this is proved.

[Kemble's theory.]

And now we must glance at certain theories opposed to that which has been here stated. Kemble contends that the hide contained 30 or 33 Saxon which were equal to 40 Norman acres, and that the hide of Domesday Book contains 40 Norman acres[1601]. Now in so far as this doctrine deals with the time before the Conquest, we will postpone our judgment upon it. So far as it deals with the Domesday hide, it is supported by two arguments. One of these is to the effect that England has not room for all the hides that are attributed to it if the hide had many more than 30 or 40 acres; this argument also we will for a while defer. The other[1602] is based on a single passage in the Exeter Domesday relating to the manor of Poleham. That entry seems to involve an equation which can only be solved if 1 virgate = 10 acres. William of Mohun has a manor which in the time of King Edward paid geld for 10 hides; he has in demesne 4 H., 1 V., 6 A. and the villeins have 5-1/2 H., 4 A.[1603] Now three or four such entries would certainly set the matter at rest; but a single entry can not. By way of answer it will be enough to say that the very next entry seems to imply an equation of precisely the same form, but one that is plainly absurd. This same William has a manor called Ham; it paid geld for 5 hides; there were 3 H., 8 A. in demesne and the villains had 2 H. less 12 A. Shall we draw the conclusion that 5 H. = 5 H. - 4 A.? The truth we suspect to be that here, as in Middlesex, geldable units and actual areal units have already begun to perplex each other. Both Poleham and Ham are what we call 'over-rated' manors. It is known that Poleham contains 10 hides and Ham 5 hides, but, when we come to look for the acres that will make up the due tale of hides, we can not find them; for let King William's officers have never so clear a terminology of their own, the country folk will not for ever be distinguishing between 'acres _ad geldum_' and 'acres _ad arandum_' But be the explanation what it may, we repeat that the one equation that Kemble could find to support his argument is found in the closest company with an equation which when similarly treated produces a nonsensical result. This is all the direct evidence that he has produced from Domesday Book in favour of the hide of 40 acres. Robertson, while holding that the hide of Mercia contained 120 acres, adopted Kemble's opinion that the hide of Wessex contained 40 without producing any witness from Domesday save only the passage about Poleham[1604]. Eyton reckons 48 'gheld acres' to the 'gheld hide,' but he leaves us utterly at a loss to tell how he came by this computation[1605].

[The ploughland and the plough.]

Another theory we must examine. It is ingenious and, were it true, would throw much light on a dark corner. It starts from the facts disclosed by the survey of the East Riding of Yorkshire[1606]. In that district, it is said, the number of carucates for geld that there are in any manor (this number we will call _a_) is usually either equal to, or just twice the number (which we call _b_) of the 'lands for one plough,' or, as we say, teamlands. Further, it can be shown from maps and other modern evidences that the manors in which _a = b_ were manors with two common fields, in other words, were 'two-course manors,' while those in which _a = 2b_ were manors with three common fields, in other words were 'three-course manors.' The suggested explanation is that while the teamland or 'land for one plough' means the amount of land that one plough will till in the course of a year, the 'carucate for geld' is the amount of land which one plough tills in one field in the course of a year. Manor _X_, let us suppose, is a two-course manor; the whole amount of land which a plough will till there in a year will lie in one field; therefore in this case _a = b_. Manor _Y_ is a three-course manor; in a given year a plough will there till a certain quantity of land, but half its work will have been done in one field, half in another; therefore in this case _a = 2b_.

[The Yorkshire carucates.]

Now we must own to doubting the possibility of deciding with any certainty from comparatively modern evidence which (if any) of the Yorkshire vills were under a system of three-course culture in the eleventh century. In the year 1086 many of them were lying and for long years had lain waste either in whole or in part. Thus the first group of examples that is put before us as the foundation for a theory consists of 15 manors the sum of whose carucates for geld is 91-1/4 while the sum of the teamlands is 91-3/4. What was the state of these manors in 1086? Three of them were absolutely waste. The recorded population on the others consisted of four priests, one sokemean, eighty-four villeins and twenty-six bordiers; the number of existing teams was 35-1/2; the total _valet_ of the whole fifteen estates was £7. 1_s._, though they had been worth £72 in King Edward's day[1607]. It is obvious enough that very little land is really being ploughed, and surely it is a most perilous inference that, when culture comes back to these deserted villages, the old state of things will be reproduced, so that we shall be able to decide which of them had three and which had two fields in the days before the devastation. Further, we can not think that, even for the East Riding of Yorkshire, the figures show as much regularity as has been attributed to them. In the first place, there are admittedly many cases in which neither of the two equations of which we have spoken (_a = b_ or _a = 2b_) is precisely true. We can only say that they are approximately true. Then there are other cases--too many, as we think, to be treated as exceptional--in which _a_ bears to _b_ some very simple ratio which is neither 1:1 nor yet 2:1; it is 3:2, or 4:3, or 5:3.

[Relation between teamlands and fiscal carucates.]

But at any rate, to extend the theory to the whole of Yorkshire, to say nothing of all England, is out of the question. No doubt as a whole Yorkshire was (in the terms that we have used) an 'over-rated' county: that is to say, as a general rule, _a_, if not equal to, was greater than _b_. But it can not be said that when _a_ was not equal to _b_ it normally was, or even tended to be equal to 2_b_. We take by chance a page describing the possessions of Count Alan[1608]; it contains 20 entries; in one of these _a = b_, in one _a = 2b_, in one _b_ is greater than _a_; in ten cases the proportion which _a_ bears to _b_ is 3:2, in two it is 4:3, in two it is 5:3, in one 6:5, in one 7:5, in one it is 17:12. In the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham and Derby an application of this doctrine would be ludicrous, for very commonly _b_ is greater than _a_. What is more, the method of taxation that it presupposes is so unjust that we are loath to attribute it to any one. To tax a man in proportion to the area of the land that he treats as arable, that is a plausibly equitable method; to tax him in proportion to the area that he has ploughed in a given year, that also is a plausibly equitable method; but the present proposal could only be explained as a deliberate effort to tax the three-field system out of existence[1609]. To take the figures that have been suggested to us by the author of this theory, we suppose that _X_ is using a team of oxen in 'a two-course manor'; he has 160 acres of arable land and ploughs 80 of them in every year. Then in another village _Y_ is using a team of oxen according to the three-course system; he has, we are told, 180 acres of arable and ploughs 120 acres in every year. This unfortunate _Y_ is to pay double the amount of geld that is paid by _X_. We could understand a demand that _Y_ should pay nine shillings when _X_ pays eight, for _Y_ has in all 180 acres of arable and _X_ has 160. We could understand a demand that _Y_ should pay three shillings when _X_ pays two, for _Y_ sows 120 acres a year and _X_ sows 80. But nothing short of a settled desire to extirpate the three-field system will prompt us to exact two shillings from _Y_ for every one that is paid by _X_. Lastly, we must repeat in passing our protest[1610] against the introduction into this context of those figures which express the aspirations of that enthusiast of the plough, Walter of Henley. That the 'land for one team' of Domesday Book points normally or commonly to an area of arable land containing 160 or 180 acres we can not believe. If we give it on an average 120 acres we may perhaps find room for the recorded team lands, though probably we shall often have to make our acres small; but county after county will refuse to make room for teamlands with 160 or 180 acres[1611]. No doubt the regularity of the Yorkshire figures is remarkable. There are other districts in northern England where we may see some one relation between _A_ and _B_ steadily prevailing. We will call to mind, by way of example, the symmetrical arrangement that we have seen in one of the Rutland wapentakes, where _A_ = 4_B_. This we can not explain, nor will it be explained until Domesday Book has been rearranged by hundreds and vills; we have, however, hazarded a guess as to the quarter in which the explanation may be found[1612]. As to the Yorkshire figures, we think that of all the figures in the record they are the least likely to be telling us the simple truth about the amount of cultivated land.

[Sidenote: The fiscal hide of 120 acres.]

We may now briefly recapitulate the evidence which leads us to the old-fashioned belief that King William's Exchequer reckons 120 acres to the hide. There are at the least twenty sums set before us which involve the equation: 1H. = 120A. or 1V. = 30A. We doubt whether there are two sums which involve any one other equation. That there are sums which involve or seem to involve other equations we fully admit; but when a fair allowance has been made for mistranscription, miscalculation, the loss of acres due to partitionary arrangements[1613], and, above all, to a transition from the rateable to the real, from the hidage on the roll to the strips in the fields, we can not think that these cases are sufficiently numerous to shake our faith. We have further seen that in Essex and East Anglia the acres of the fiscal system lie in batches of just those sizes which would be produced if an unit of 120 acres was being broken into halfs, thirds, quarters and fifths. Lastly, 'the rustics' of the twelfth century 'tell us that the hide according to its original constitution consists of a hundred acres[1614]' and probably these rustics reckon by the long hundred.

[Antiquity of the large hide.]

If now we are satisfied about this matter, we seem to be entitled to some inferences about remoter history. The fiscal practice of reckoning 120 acres to the hide can hardly be new. Owing to many causes, among which we recall the partitionary system of taxation, the influence of an equity which would consider value as well as area, and the disturbing forces of privilege and favouritism, the fiscal hide of the Confessor's day has strayed far away from the fields and is no measure of land[1615]. At its worst it is jobbery; at its best a lame compromise between an unit of area and an unit of value. And yet, for all this, it is composed of acres, of 120 acres. The theory that is involved in this mode of calculation is so little in harmony with the existing facts that we can not but believe that it is ancient. It seems to point to a time long gone by when the typical tenement which was to serve as an unit of taxation generally had six score arable acres, little more or less.

FOOTNOTES:

[1340] D. B. i. 307 b, 308.

[1341] It will be convenient for us to adopt this term a 'teamland'
as an equivalent for the _Terra ad unam carucam_ of our
record, so that '_b_ teamlands' shall translate _Terra ad b
carucas_. The reader is asked to accept this note as an
'interpretation clause.'

[1342] D. B. i. 353.

[1343] D. B. i. 308, Trectone.

[1344] D. B. i. 275 b, Burnulfestune.

[1345] D. B. i 337 b.

[1346] See pp. 400-403.

[1347] We shall not complain of our tools; but Domesday Book is
certainly not impeccable. As to its omissions see Eyton,
Notes on Domesday (1880); also Round, Feudal England, 43.

[1348] Agricultural Returns, 1895 (Board of Agriculture) p. 34.
Tidal water is excluded.

[1349] The received figures are: Middlesex, 149,046, London, 75,442.
From older sources we give Middlesex, 180,480: Population
Abstract, 1833, vol. i. p. 376.

[1350] For some good remarks on these matters see Eyton, Notes on
Domesday. Lincoln, Nottingham and Northampton would require
correction because of the treatment that Rutland has
received. The boundary of Shropshire has undergone changes.
The inclusion of stretches of Welsh ground increases the
population without adding to the hidage of some western
counties.

[1351] See above, p. 7.

[1352] Thus Leicester is charged with £100. 0_s._ 0_d._, with £99.
19_s._ 11_d._ and with £99. 19_s._ 4_d._

[1353] In 8 Hen. II. several of the counties answer for about £10
less than had formerly been demanded from them.

[1354] The inclusion of the boroughs would have led to many
difficulties. London, for example, though no account is taken
of it in D. B., seems to have gelded for 1200 hides. (Brit.
Mus. MS. Add. 14,252, f. 126.)

[1355] We omit the 'ingeldable carucates' which occur in some
hidated counties. This may introduce a little caprice. If the
jurors in one of these counties ascribe twelve carucates to a
manor, we do not count them. If they had spoken of hides
which never gelded, we should have counted them; and yet we
may agree with Eyton that the two phrases would mean much the
same thing. But this source of error or caprice is not very
important in our present context. Thus we take Dorset. Eyton
gives it 2321 hides and then by adding 'quasi-hides' brings
up the number to 2650. The difference between these two
figures is not large when regarded from the point that we are
occupying. I have thought that the difficulty would be better
met by the warning that Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset and Devon
contain considerable stretches of unhidated royal demesne,
than by my reckoning as hides what Eyton called
'quasi-hides.' In the case of Dorset, Somerset and Stafford I
have placed Eyton's figures below my own and signed them with
the letter _E_. I know full well that his are much more
accurate than mine. He probably gave to each county that he
examined more months than I have given weeks to the whole of
England. In comparing our results, it should be remembered
that, at least in Staffordshire, he dealt with the county
boundary in a manner which, in my ignorance, I dare not
adopt.

[1356] My calculations about Leicestershire are more than usually
rough, owing to the appearance of the curious 'hide' or
'hundred' or whatever it is. See on the one hand Stevenson,
E. H. R. v. 95, and on the other Round, Feudal England, 82.
Whether this unit contained 12 or 18 carucates is not of very
great importance to us at the moment. But there are other
difficulties in Leicestershire. In Cornwall I was compelled
to make an assumption as to the peculiar _ager_ or _acra_ of
that county; but no reasonable theory about this matter would
seriously affect the number of Cornwall's hides.

[1357] The usual formula is: 'Tunc se defendit pro _a_ hidis, modo
pro _a´_.' We place _a_ in Col. IV., _a´_ in Col. V.

[1358] The usual formula is: 'T. R. E. geldabat pro _a_ hidis; ibi
tamen sunt _a´_ hidae.' We place _a_ in Col. IV. and _a´_ in
Col. V.; and we shall argue hereafter, with some hesitation,
that the taxation of this county has been increased under
William.

[1359] The words _Terra est_ are written and are followed by a blank
space. Many instances in Kent and Sussex.

[1360] On the other hand, when I find a statement about _B_ and none
about _C_, I do not assume that _C_ = _B_; on the contrary, I
read the entry to mean that _C_ = 0. In other words, it is
very possible that there should be teamlands without teams;
but I do not think that for Domesday's purposes there can be
teams (i.e. teams at work) without land that is being
ploughed, though it is true that often, and in some counties
habitually, _C_ will be slightly greater than _B_.

[1361] One of the chief difficulties in the way of accurate
computation is occasioned by what we may call the complex
entries. We start with some such statement as this: 'The
Bishop holds Norton. It defends itself for _a_ hides. There
is land for _b_ teams. There are _d_ teams on the demesne and
the villeins have _e_ teams.' But then we read: 'Of this land
[_or_ of these _a_ hides] Roger holds _m_ hides; there are
_n_ teams on the demesne and the villeins have _o_ teams.'
Here the total number of hides is _a_, and not _a_ + _m_; and
I think that the total number of teamlands is _b_, and not
_b_ + some unstated number held by Roger; but the total
number of teams is _d_ + _e_ + _n_ + _o_. Entries in this
form are not very uncommon, and therefore this explanation
seemed to be required.

[1362] Pearson, History of England, ii. 665.

[1363] Col. IX. gives I. divided by II. Col. X. gives I. divided by
VI. Col. XI. gives I. divided by VII. Col. XII. gives II.
divided by VI. Col. XIII. gives II. divided by VII. Col. XIV.
gives VI. divided by VII. Col. XV. gives VIII. divided by VI.
[or if there is no VI. for this county, then by VII.].

[1364] In Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford and Shropshire I was
compelled to adopt as the divisor the number of teams instead
of the number of teamlands. As it is fairly certain that
these counties were 'underteamed' (_B_ > _C_), the resulting
quotient (annual value of land actually tilled by a team)
should be diminished before it is compared with the figures
given for other counties.

[1365] C. S. Taylor, Analysis of Gloucestershire Domesday (Bristol
and Gloucestershire Archaeol. Soc. 1887-9).

[1366] But this is intended to include males only: the _ancillae_
are left out.

[1367] Mr Taylor says in his preface: 'The work has occupied a large
part of my leisure time for five years.' There is therefore
some audacity in my printing my figures beside his. It is
clear that we have put different constructions upon some of
the composite entries concerning large manors. See below, p.
457. Mr Taylor, like Eyton, computes only 48 'geld acres' to
the hide; I reckon 120 acres to the hide; that, however, is
in this context a trifling matter.

[1368] Mr Taylor has brought out 15_s._ 5_d._ as the average _valet_
of land tilled by a team. By taking Pearson's _valet_ and my
teams I have brought out 15_s._ 0_d._

[1369] For Dorset and Somerset my figures can be checked by Eyton's.
For Wiltshire, Devon, Cornwall, by the Geld Inquests. These
give for Wiltshire (see W. H. Jones, Domesday for Wiltshire,
158 ff.) 3955 H. 3 V.; for Devon (see Devonshire Domesday,
ed. Devonsh. Assoc. p. xlix.) 1029 H. 1 V. 3 F.; for Cornwall
401 H. 3 V. 1 F. I give for Wiltshire 4050 H., for Devon 1119
H., for Cornwall 399 H.

[1370] Lincoln, 5·0; Nottingham, 4·4; Derby, 3·9; Surrey, 3·7;
Hampshire, 3·6; Middlesex, 3·4; Dorset, 3·3; Cambridge, 3·1;
Berkshire, 3·0; Wiltshire, 2·9; Hertford, Northampton,
Warwick, Somerset, 2·8; Huntingdon, 2·6; Oxford, 2·5; Bedford
and Buckingham, 2·4; Cornwall and Stafford, 2·2; Devon, 2·1.
For Kent the figure would be near 3·9, for Sussex near 3·3,
for apparently in these counties there was approximate
equality between the number of teams and the number of
teamlands.

[1371] One word about the meaning of the _valets_. I think it very
clear from thousands of examples that an estate is valued 'as
a going concern.' The question that the jurors put to
themselves is: 'What will this estate bring in, peopled as it
is and stocked as it is?' In other words, they do not
endeavour to make abstraction of the villeins, oxen, etc. and
to assign to the land what would be its annual value if it
were stocked or peopled according to some standard of average
culture. Consequently in a few years the value of an estate
may leap from one pound to three pounds or to five shillings
or even to zero. Eyton, Dorset, 56, has good remarks on this
matter.

[1372] Seebohm, Village Community, 85-6. To the contrary Round, in
Domesday Studies, i. 209, and Feudal England, 35.

[1373] Round, Feudal England, 35.

[1374] See e.g. D. B. i. 222: 'Terra est 2 car. _Has_ habent ibi 3
sochemanni et 12 bordarii.' ... 'Terra est 3 car. Ibi sunt
ipsae cum 9 sochemannis et 9 bordariis.' Ibid. i. 223: 'Terra
est 1 car. _quam_ habent ibi 4 bordarii.' Ibid. i. 107 b:
'Terra est 7 car. et _tot_ ibi sunt.'

[1375] D. B. i. 222. Codestoche, Lidintone.

[1376] D. B. i. 289; 339 b, Bechelinge.

[1377] D. B. i. 342 b, Toresbi.

[1378] D. B. i. 339, Agetorne.

[1379] D. B. i. 174, Lappewrte.

[1380] D. B. i. 163, Berchelai.

[1381] D. B. i. 218 b, Stanford. Or let us take this case (D. B. i.
148): 'Terra est 3 car. In dominio est una et 4 villani
habent aliam et tercia potest fieri.' Is this third team to
be a team of four or a team of eight?

[1382] Seebohm, Village Community, 85.

[1383] As a specimen we take 10 consecutive entries from the royal
demesne in Surrey in which it is said that _x_ villeins and
_y_ bordiers have _z_ teams. We add half of _y_ to _x_ and
divide the result by _z_. The quotients are 10·3, 4·0, 3·7,
3·5, 3·4, 2·7, 2·2, 1·9, 1·8, 1·4. If we massed the ten cases
together, the quotient would be 2·8. We can easily find
averages; but, even if we omit cases in which there is an
exceptional dearth of oxen, the variations are so
considerable that we must not speak of a type or norm.

[1384] Glastonbury Rentalia, 51-2: 'S. tenet 1 virgatam terre ... et
si habet 8 boves debet warectare ... 7 acras. Si autem
pauciores habet, warectabit pro unoquoque bove octavam partem
7 acrarum.' Ibid. 61: 'R. C. tenet unam virgatam ... et
habebit 4 boves cum bobus domini.' Ibid. 68: 'G. tenet
dimidiam hidam ... et si habuerit 8 boves...' Ibid. 78: 'L.
tenet 5 acras ... et bis debet venire cum 1 bove et cum
pluribus si habuerit...' Ibid. 98-9: 'M. tenet 1 virgatam ...
si habuerit quatuor boves...' Ibid. 129: 'S. tenet 1 virgatam
... et debet invenire domino 1 carrum et 6 boves ad cariandum
fenum.' Ibid. 130: 'M. tenet dimidiam virgatam ... et debet
invenire 2 boves.' Ibid. 189: Three cases in which a virgater
comes to the boon days with eight oxen. Larking, Domesday of
Kent, App. 33: Customs of Hedenham: '...habebit unam virgatam
terrae ... item habebit quatuor boves in pasturam domini.'

[1385] D. B. i. 211: 'Terra est dim. car. et unus bos ibi arat.'

[1386] D. B. i. 342 b, Toresbi.

[1387] Pollock, E. H. R. xi. 813. I venture to think that Sir F.
Pollock has not answered his own argument (p. 220) for a
constant _caruca_.

[1388] Inq. Com. Cant. 70.

[1389] Another example from a Northamptonshire column (D. B. i. 226)
will show what we mean. Let H stand for hides and T for
teamlands, and let the virgate be a quarter of a hide, then
we have this series: 2 H (5 T), 2-1/2 H (4 T), 4 H (8 T),
1-1/4 H (3 T), 1-7/12 H (4 T), 3/8 H (1/2 T), 1/2 H (1 T),
2-1/2 H (6 T), 1-1/4 H (3 T), 2 H (4 T), 7/8 H (3 T). We see
that T is integral where H is fractional.

[1390] Exceptionally we read in Kent (i. 9): 'Terra est dim. car. et
ibidem sunt adhuc 30 acrae terrae.' And is not this a
rule-proving exception? The jurors can not say simply 'land
for half a team and thirty acres.' They say 'land for half a
team and there are thirty acres in addition.'

[1391] D. B. iv. 497; Inq. Com. Cant. 97.

[1392] There can be little doubt that this is the right reading. See
Round. Feudal England, 134.

[1393] Thus, D. B. ii. 39: 'Tunc 4 carucae in dominio, post et modo
2 ... et 2 carucae possunt restaurari.' To use our symbols,
in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk we obtain statements about _A_
and about _C_, but learn nothing about _B_, unless this is to
be inferred from the increase or decrease that has taken
place in _C_. We shall hereafter argue that, in spite of some
appearances to the contrary, the carucates of East Anglia
belong to the order _A_ and not to the order _B_.

[1394] Thus, D. B. i. 231: 'Rad. tenet de episcopo 4 car. terrae in
Partenei. Terra est 4 car. In dominio sunt 2 et ... villani
habent 2 car.' Just before this we have the other common
formula: 'Rad. tenet ... 2 car. terrae in Toniscote. Duae
car. possunt esse et ibi sunt.'

[1395] Thus, D. B. i. 231 b: 'Ipsa Comitissa tenuit Dunitone. Ibi 22
car. et dimid. T. R. E. erant ibi 12 car. Modo in dominio
sunt 3 et ... villani ... habent 12 car.'

[1396] To me it looks as if the variations were due to a clerk's
caprice. The Leicestershire survey fills 30 columns. Not
until the top of col. 5 has the compiler, except as a rare
exception, the requisite information. Then, after hesitating
as to whether he shall adopt the '_x_ car. possunt esse'
formula, he decides in favour of 'Terra est _x_ car.' This we
will call Formula I. It reigns throughout cols. 5-13, though
broken on three or four occasions by what we will call
Formula II, namely 'T. R. E. erant ibi _x_ car.' At the top
of col. 14 Formula II. takes possession and keeps it into
col. 16. Then I. has a short turn. Then (col. 17) II. is back
again. Then follow many alternations. At the top of col. 24,
however, a simplified version of II. appears; the express
reference to the T. R. E. vanishes, and we have merely 'ibi
fuerunt _x_ car.' In the course of col. 26 this is changed to
'ibi _x_ car. fuerunt.' These two versions of II. prevail
throughout the last six columns, though there is one short
relapse to I. (col. 28).

[1397] The proof of this lies in the Inq. Com. Cant. and the Exon
Domesday.

[1398] This appears on a collation of D. B. with the two records
mentioned in our last note. See Round, Feudal England, 26.

[1399] D. B. i. 174: 'In omnibus his maneriis non possunt esse plus
carucae quam dictum est.'

[1400] When _C_ varies from _B_, the statement about _C_ will
sometimes be introduced by a _sed_ or a _tamen_ which tells
us that things are not what they might be expected to be. D.
B. i. 77 b: 'Terra est dimid. car. et tamen est ibi 1 car.'
D. B. i. 222: 'Terra est dim. car. tamen 2 villani habent 1
car.'

[1401] As a wheat-grower Devon stands in our own day at the very
bottom of the English counties. Its average yield per acre in
1885-95 was 21 bushels, while Cambridge's was 32. Next above
Devon stands Monmouth and then comes Cornwall.

[1402] Marshall, Review of Reports to Board of Agriculture from
Southern Departments, 524: 'The management of the land is
uniform; here and there an exception will be found. The whole
is convertible, sometimes into arable, and sometimes pasture.
Arable is sown with wheat, barley, or oats, as long as it
will bear any; and then grass for eight or ten years, until
the land is recovered, and capable again of bearing corn.'
See also p. 531: the lands go back to the waste 'in tenfold
worse condition than [that wherein] they were in a state of
nature.' It is just in the country which is not a country of
village communities that we find this 'aration of the waste.'

[1403] Some parts of Worcestershire, for example, show a marked
deficiency in oxen. On the lands of Osbern Fitz Richard (14
entries) there are about 102 teams, and there 'could be' 32
more. See D. B. i. 176 b. In some parts of Cheshire also
there is a great deficiency.

[1404] D. B. i. 122 b: 'Luduham ... Terra 15 car. vel 30 car.' In
the Exeter book (D. B. iv. 240) two conflicting estimates are
recorded: 'Luduam ... In ea sunt 3 hidae terrae et reddidit
gildum pro 1 hida. hanc possunt arare 15 carrucae. hanc tenet
Ricardus de Comite. in ea sunt 3 hidae terrae et reddidit
gildum pro 1 hida. hanc possunt arare 30 carrucae. hanc tenet
Ricardus de Comite.'

[1405] D. B. i. 246 b.

[1406] Often a Yorkshire entry touching a waste vill gives no _B_.
Therefore in my Tables I have omitted the number of the
Yorkshire teamlands, lest hasty inferences should be drawn
from it. I believe it falls between 5000 and 6000. It is much
smaller than _A_, much greater than _C_.

[1407] Be it remembered that these waste vills can not send
deputations to meet the justices, and that the
representatives of the wapentakes may never have seen some of
those deserts of which they have to speak. 'All of these
vills,' they say on one occasion (i. 301), 'belong to
Preston. In sixteen of them there are a few inhabitants; but
how many we do not know. The rest are waste.'

[1408] See below, p. 471.

[1409] Devon, 2·1; Cornwall, 2·2; Derby, 3·9; Nottingham, 4·4;
Lincoln, 5·0. The figure for Stafford is about as low as that
for Cornwall; but Stafford has been devastated. See Eyton,
Staffordshire, 30. Kent and Surrey would stand high. Kent
would perhaps stand as high as Derby. But Lincoln has no
peer, unless it be Norfolk, Suffolk, or Essex. Our reason for
not speaking of these last three counties will appear by and
by.

[1410] An essay by Mr W. J. Corbett which I had the advantage of
seeing some time ago, and which will I hope soon be in print,
will throw much new light on this matter.

[1411] I have roughly added up the carucates and teams of Norfolk, a
laborious task, and have seen reason to believe that the
figures for Suffolk would be of the same kind.

[1412] In dealing with Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk an equation
connecting the hide or (as the case may be) carucate with the
acre becomes of vast importance. I have throughout assumed
that 120 acres make the hide or carucate. If this assumption,
about which something will be said hereafter, is unjustified,
my whole computation breaks down. Then in Norfolk there are
(especially I think in certain particular hundreds) a good
many estates for which no extent (real or rateable) is given.
I have made no allowance for this. On the other hand, I
believe that I have carried to an extreme in Norfolk the
principle of including everything. I doubt, for example,
whether some of the acres held by the parish churches have
not been reckoned twice over. Also both in Essex and Norfolk
I reckoned in the lands that are mentioned among the
_Invasiones_, and in so doing ran the danger of counting them
for a second time.

[1413] Also we may remark that in many respects the survey of Essex
is closely akin to the survey of East Anglia; but in Essex
nothing is said about the geldability of vills and therefore,
unless the Essex hides and acres belong to the order of
geldable units (_A_), our record tells us nothing as to the
geld of Essex: an unacceptable conclusion.

[1414] Dorset, 15, 23-24.

[1415] In Dorset 22,000 acres are 'designedly omitted'; in Somerset
nearly 178,000; in Staffordshire nearly 246,000. Mr C. S.
Taylor puts the deficiency in Gloucestershire at 200,000 or
thereabouts.

[1416] See above, p. 370.

[1417] D. B. ii. 160 b: A certain vill is 1 league 10 perches long,
and 1 league 4-1/2 feet wide. Surely such a statement would
never come from men who could use and were intending to use a
system of superficial measurement.

[1418] D. B. ii. 170. Or take Westbruge (ii. 206): Two carucates;
two teams and a half; 'this vill is 5 furlongs in length by 3
in breadth.' If every inch of the vill is ploughed, the
carucate can only have 75 acres, and each team tills but 60.
I have noted many cases in which this method will not leave
120 acres for the team.

[1419] D. B. i. 310.

[1420] D. B. i. 307 b.

[1421] D. B. i. 310. In these Yorkshire cases it is needless for us
to raise the question whether the _totum_ that is being
measured is the manor or the vill.

[1422] D. B. ii. 118 b.

[1423] D. B. i. 303 b (Yorkshire, Oleslec).

[1424] D. B. i. 303 b (Othelai).

[1425] D. B. i. 346 b (Bastune); 4 carucates for geld; land for 4
teams; arable land 8 quar. by 8.

[1426] D. B. i. 346 b (Langetof); 6 carucates for geld; land for 6
teams; arable land 15 quar. long and 9 wide.

[1427] D. B. i. 248 b (Rolvestune); 2-1/2 hides; land for 8 teams;
18 teams existing; arable land 2 leagues long and 1 [league]
wide. Eyton (Staffordshire, 48) has a long note on this entry
which makes against his doctrine that the teamland is 120
acres. He suggests that the statement by linear measure is a
correction of the previous statement that there is land for 8
teams. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this entry does not
stand alone. Morgan, op. cit. 34, speaks of some of these
entries. Those which he mentions and which we have not
noticed do not seem quite to the point. Thus (D. B. i. 263 b)
of Edesberie we read 'land for 6 ploughs ... this land is a
league long and equally wide.' We are not here expressly told
that all the 'land' thus measured by lineal measure is
arable. The cases of Dictune, Winetun, Grif and Bernodebi,
which he then cites, are beside the mark, for what is here
measured by lineal measure seems to be the whole area of the
manor.

[1428] To make safer, I take the Dorset and Somerset teamlands from
Eyton, the Gloucester teams from Mr Taylor. In the modern
statistics the 'arable' covers 'bare fallow' and 'grasses
under rotation'; the 'permanent pasture' includes 'grass for
hay,' but excludes 'mountain and heath land used for
grazing'; the total acreage includes everything but 'tidal
water.' To bring up the particulars to the total, we should
have to add (1) a little for orchards and market gardens, and
having thus obtained the sum of all the land that is within
the purview of the Board of Agriculture, we should still have
to add (2) the sites of towns, houses, factories, etc., (3)
tenements of less than an acre whereof no statistics are
obtained, (4) roads, railways, etc., (5) waste not used for
pasture, rocks, sea-shore, etc., (6) non-tidal water. The
area not accounted for by our figures will be smallest in an
inland county which has no large towns; it will be raised by
sea-shore or by manufacturing industry.

[1429] Agricultural Returns, 1895, p. xiii: 'The actual loss of
arable area in the interval covered by the last two decades
... is 2,137,000 acres.'

[1430] Mr Seebohm, Village Community, p. 103, seems to think that D.
B. testifies to no more than 5 million acres of arable. But,
even if we stop at the Humber, we shall have 9 million if a
team tills 120.

[1431] D. B. ii. 116: T. R. E. there were 1320 _burgenses_.

[1432] D. B. ii 372.

[1433] It seems probable that in many cases the parish priest is
reckoned among the townsmen, the _villani_.

[1434] See above, p. 20.

[1435] While historical economists can still dispute as to whether
the population in 1346 was 5 millions, or only 2-1/2
(Cunningham, Eng. Industry, i. 301) guesses about 1085 are
premature. M. Fabre has lately estimated the population of
England under Henry II. at 2,880,000. But as to this
calculation, see Liebermann, Eng. Hist. Rev. xi. 746.

[1436] See above, p. 366.

[1437] Walter of Henley, pp. 67, 71.

[1438] Walter of Henley, p. 19.

[1439] Rogers, Hist. Agric. i. 50-1.

[1440] Tour in the Southern Counties, ed. 3 (1767), p. 158. See also
p. 242.

[1441] Agricultural Returns, 1895, p. 239. The figures given under
the year 1894 which express the average yield of a statute
acre in imperial bushels are for Australasia, 8·18; India,
9·00; Russia in Europe, 10·76; United States, 12·79.
Apparently in South Australia 1,577,000 acres can produce as
little as 7,781,000 bushels. As I understand, Sir J. B. Lawes
and Sir J. H. Gilbert reckon that for an unmanured acre in
England 16 bushels would be an average return, but that if
the same acre is continuously sown with wheat, the yield will
decline at the rate of nearly a quarter of a bushel every
year. See Journ. Agricult. Soc., 3rd Ser. vol. iv. p. 87.

[1442] This calculus was officially adopted in 1891; see a paper by
Sir J. B. Lawes and Sir J. H. Gilbert in Journ. Agric. Soc.,
3rd Ser., vol iv. p. 102. I desire to express my thanks to
the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture for directing my
attention to this paper.

[1443] I understand that the average number of loaves that can be
made from 280 lbs. of flour may be put at about 90.

[1444] Agricultural Returns, 1895, pp. 166, 90, 198. The old rough
estimate of a quarter of wheat per head is much too high; the
average is about 5·65 bushels. See the paper cited in note
1442. Now-a-days we can further allot to each inhabitant of
the United Kingdom an amount of cereal matter other than
wheat, to wit, barley, oats, beans, peas, maize, etc. which
would take for its production perhaps as much as 1·5 times
the area of the land that is required for the growth of the
wheat that we have allotted to him. But much of this only
feeds him by feeding animals that he eats; much only feeds
him very indirectly by feeding horses engaged in the
production or transport of food; and some of it can not be
said to feed him at all. Then, on the other hand, large
quantities of potatoes, sugar and rice are being eaten.

[1445] Wheat, oats, barley and peas are mentioned in D. B.; also rye
(i. 257 b).

[1446] Hale, Worcester Register, p. civ.

[1447] Boldon Book, D. B. iv. 580-5. So in D. B. i. 69 the sheriff
of Wiltshire receives equal quantities of wheat and malt and
a larger quantity of oats. See also D. B. i. 179 b.

[1448] Domesday of St. Paul's, 164*. See also Cart. Rams. iii. 231.

[1449] Ibid, cxxxiv. 173.

[1450] Ibid. 173.

[1451] Calculations are difficult and may be misleading, not only
because of the variability of medieval measures, but also
because of the varying strength of beer. Mr Steele, the Chief
Inspector of Excise, has been good enough to inform me that a
bushel of unmalted barley weighing 42 lbs. would yield about
19·5 gallons of beer at 58°. The figures from St. Paul's seem
to point to a strong brew, since they apparently derive but 8
gallons from the bushel of mixed grain. The ordinances of
cent. xiii. (Statutes, i. 200, 202) seem to suppose that,
outside the cities, the brewer, after deducting expenses and
profit, could sell 8 to 12 gallons of beer for the price of a
bushel of barley. If we suppose that the bushel of barley
gives 18 gallons, the man who drinks his gallon a day
consumes 20 bushels a year, and when the acre yields but 6
bushels of wheat, it will hardly yield more than 7 of barley.
There is valuable learning in J. Bickerdyke, The Curiosities
of Ale, pp. 54, 106, 154.