Chapter XIII: XIV XV XVI (5)

[1452] As to both meat and drink see Ine 70, § 1; T. 460, 468, 471,
473, 474; E. 118; Æthelstan, II. 1. § 1; D. B. i. 169, rents
of the shrievalty of Wiltshire. Attempts to measure the flood
of beer break down before the uncertain content of the
_amber_, _modius_, _sextarius_, etc. In particular I can not
believe that the amber of ale contained (Schmid, p. 530;
Robertson, Hist. Essays, 68) 4 of our bushels; but, do all we
can to reduce it, the allowance of beer seems large.

[1453] D. B. ii. 162 b: Cheltenham and King's Barton.

[1454] D. B. i. 205. The abbot of Peterborough is bound to find
pasture for 120 pigs for the abbot of Thorney. If he can not
do this, he must feed and fatten 60 pigs with corn (_de
annona pascit et impinguat 60 porcos_).

[1455] Walter of Henley, 13. Every week each ox is to have 3-1/2
garbs of oats, and 10 garbs would yield a bushel.

[1456] Now-a-days the average acre in England will produce about 29
bushels of wheat or 40 of oats. Agricultural Returns, 1895,
pp. 66, 70.

[1457] See above, p. 398.

[1458] Rogers, op. cit. i. 51.

[1459] Clearly so in some cases. See e. g. the first entry in Inq.
Com. Cant. The teams of lord and villeins having been
mentioned, we then read that the 'pecunia _in dominio_'
consists of so many pigs, sheep, etc. Moreover, if all the
cattle not of the plough were enumerated under the title
_animalia_, there would not be nearly enough to renew the
number of beasts of the plough. Again, when the capacity of
the wood is stated in terms of the pigs that it will
maintain, the number thus given will in general vastly exceed
the number of pigs whose existence is recorded. Lastly, we
see that at Crediton (iv. 107) where the lord has but 57
pigs, he receives every year 150 pigs from certain
_porcarii_, whose herds are not counted. Throughout Sussex
the lord takes one pig from every villein who has seven (i.
16 b). See also Morgan, op. cit. 56.

[1460] See above, p. 76.

[1461] Before we have gone through a tenth of the account of Essex,
we have read of 'wood for' near 10,000 pigs. If the woods
were full and this rate were maintained throughout the
country, the swine of England would be as numerous T. R. W.
as they now are. No doubt Essex was exceptionally wooded and
many woods were understocked; still this mode of reckoning
the capacity of wood-land would only occur to men who were
accustomed to see large herds.

[1462] In the thirteenth century it is common to find that the acre
of meadow is deemed to be twice or three times as valuable as
the best arable acre of the same village, and a much higher
ratio is sometimes found.

[1463] This appears from the parallel account of Westley given in D.
B. and Inq. Com. Cant. (p. 19) where 'pratum 2 bobus' = '2
ac. prati.' Entries such as the following are not uncommon
(I. C. C. p. 13): 'Terra est 4 car.; in dominio est una et
villani habent 3 car. Pratum 1 car.' See Morgan, op. cit.
53-5.

[1464] Eyton, Dorset, 146.

[1465] In the above table all _vaccae_, _animalia_ and _animalia
ociosa_ are reckoned in the third column. I believe that the
two last of these terms cover all beasts of the bovine race
that are not beasts of the plough. The horses are mostly
_runcini_ and are kept for agricultural purposes. It may be
doubted whether destriers and palfreys are enumerated.

[1466] Rot. Hund. ii. 570, 575. The calculation which gave these
results was laborious; but I believe that they are pretty
correct.

[1467] On the whole, the _valet_ of D. B., so far as it is precise,
seems to me an answer to the question, What rent would a
_firmarius_ pay for this estate stocked as it is? But there
are many difficulties.

[1468] See the important but difficult account of the mill at
Arundel: D. B. i. 23.

[1469] Hall, Court Life, 221-3. The Glastonbury Inquests (Roxburgh
Club) show that 36_d._ is the settled price for the ox.

[1470] Rogers, Hist. Agric. i. 226, 342.

[1471] See above, p. 382.

[1472] Inq. Com. Cant. 38.

[1473] Or a little less.

[1474] Perhaps too small. One estate was valued in Essex.

[1475] See above, p. 443.

[1476] Domesday of St. Paul's, 59, 64, 69. See above, p. 399 note
1339.

[1477] Hanssen, Abhandlungen, i. 163.

[1478] After making an allowance of 22,000 for Suffolk (which I have
not counted) and adding 500 for the land between Ribble and
Mersey (which owing to some difficult problems, I have
omitted), the sum would fall a little short of 68,000. The
hides of London and other boroughs would raise the total.
Pearson, History, i. 658, guessed 90,000 to 100,000.

[1479] Above, p. 3.

[1480] As to the _magnum pondus Normannorum_, see Crawford Charters,
78.

[1481] D. B. i. 351.

[1482] D. B. i. 77.

[1483] D. B. i. 165, Alvestone.

[1484] D. B. i. 165 b, Malgeresberiae.

[1485] D. B. i. 252 b, Wenloch.

[1486] D. B. i. 40 b.

[1487] D. B. i. 32: 'postquam habuit pro 16 hidis ad libitum
Heraldi.'

[1488] Round, in Domesday Studies, i. 98-110.

[1489] K. 642 (iii. 203).

[1490] D. B. i. 41.

[1491] See above, p. 362.

[1492] I have chosen 'subpartitioned,' because 'repartitioned' might
have introduced the idea of periodical or occasional
rearrangement, and this it is desirable to exclude in the
present state of our knowledge.

[1493] See a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer reported in
The Times for 10 July, 1896.

[1494] Round, Feudal England, 50.

[1495] See also Pollock, E. H. R. xi. 222.

[1496] D. B. i. 172.

[1497] See above, p. 268.

[1498] The estate at Matma which is in the Dodingtree hundred will
be accounted for below.

[1499] Possibly this and the four next entries should be omitted.

[1500] We here omit the estates at Hamton and Bengeworth, about
which the churches of Worcester and Evesham were disputing,
for we believe that they have already been included in the
Worcester estate of Cropthorn. See Round in Domesday Studies,
ii. 545.

[1501] Perhaps add 5 hides at Suchelei; but apparently these have
been already included in the account of the King's Land.

[1502] A large hundred called Halfshire Hundred was formed. In Latin
records it is _Hundredum Dimidii Comitatus_. For some light
on the constitution of Dodingtree, see Round, Feudal England,
61.

[1503] 'In Huntedunescyre sunt dccc hide et dimid.' This means eight
and a half hundreds.

[1504] Leges Anglorum, p. 7.

[1505] On a re-count I made 1185.

[1506] Mr Charles Taylor gives 2595. See above, p. 412. Therefore I
have once more gone through the county with his book before
me. The difference between us is not altogether due to my
faulty arithmetic; but arises from the different
constructions that we put upon a few composite entries. In
particular I can not allow the bishop of Worcester anything
like the 231 hides that Mr Taylor gives him. When I find an
entry in this form: 'Sancta Maria tenet H. Ibi sunt _x_ hidae
... De hac terra huius manerii Turstinus tenet _y_ hidas in
O,' I believe that _x_ includes _y_, and this no matter how
far the place called O may be from the place called H. My
2388 is I think a trifle too low; but I believe the number
lies very close to 2400 on one side or the other.

[1507] Ellis, Introduction, i. 184.

[1508] Feudal England, 148.

[1509] After a re-count I think that my 1356 is a little too large,
and should not be surprised if the 2663-1/2 had been exactly
halved.

[1510] See above, p. 451. This is but one instance. Several other
hundreds had been similarly relieved. See Round, Feudal
England, 51.

[1511] My 500 (or a trifle more) for Cheshire does not include the
land between the Ribble and the Mersey. The figures given for
that district are, as is well known, very difficult. If we
take the final statement (D. B. i. 270) about the 79 'hides'
as a grand total and hold that each of these contains 6
carucates (Feudal England, 86) and that each of these
carucates pays geld equivalent to that of one ordinary hide,
then we have here 474 units to be added to the Cestrian 500,
and yet more northerly lands may have been gelding along with
Chester in Cnut's day.

[1512] The various copies disagree as to whether Herefordshire shall
have 1200 or 1500 hides. My figure stands about halfway
between these two; but many hides were not gelding in 1086. I
can not bring the Warwickshire hides down to 1200.

[1513] I take the numbers of the hundreds from Dr Stubbs, Const.
Hist. 106. I take them thence in order that I may not be
tempted to make them rounder than they are.

[1514] See above, p. 457.

[1515] Mr C. S. Taylor, op. cit. 31, finds 41.

[1516] Round, Feudal England, 44 ff.

[1517] Both statements might be illustrated from the Dorsetshire
accounts. Between 2 and 8 Hen. II. the geld seems to rise
from £228. 5_s._ to £248. 5_s._ but there is a blunder in the
addition of the pardons in the latter roll. I believe that Mr
Round has already mentioned this case somewhere. The
correspondence between the Pipe Rolls and Domesday is
sufficiently close to warrant our saying that the story told
by Orderic of a new and severer valuation made by Rufus can
have but little, if any, truth behind it. See Stubbs, Const.
Hist. i. 327.

[1518] The common formula is: 'T. R. E. geldabat pro _a_ hidis; ibi
tamen sunt _a´_ hidae' and _a´_ is largely greater than _a_.
I infer that _a´_ represents a new and increased assessment,
for the Geld Inquest seems to show Cornwall paying for 401
hides and a fraction while I make _a´_=399.

[1519] For these three counties we can not give any _B_, but must
draw inferences from _C_. Clearly in Hereford _C_ was often
thought to be much less than _B_.

[1520] As already said (above, p. 420) what we take to be
Leicester's equivalent for _B_ is sometimes given by an
unusual formula.

[1521] Rogers, Hist. Agricult. i. 110.

[1522] Yorkshire Lay Subsidy (Yorksh. Archæol. Soc.) p. xxxii.

[1523] Total acreage under all kinds of crops, bare fallow and
grass, excluding (1) nursery gardens, (2) woods and
plantations, (3) mountain and heath land.

[1524] Powell, East Anglia Rising, 121-3.

[1525] As we are giving or trying to give the fullest number of
hides whose existence is attested by D. B., and not the
number gelding in 1086, we compare with it the values given
by Pearson (Hist. Engl. i. 665) for the T. R. E. His values
for the T. R. W. are given above, p. 401.

[1526] Suffolk and Norfolk are omitted because the relation between
their carucates and the villar geld pence is as yet
uncertain. Stafford does not provide _valuits_ enough to give
a stable average; but in general the _valets_ and _valuits_
for its hides are high. I have excluded (1) royal demesne,
(2) cases in which there is any talk of 'waste,' (3) cases in
which a particular manor is obviously privileged. In
Lincolnshire it is difficult to obtain good figures, because
of the way in which the sokes are valued.

[1527] See above, p. 386, note 1304.

[1528] Werhard's testament, K. 230 (i. 297), tells us of a great
estate of 100 hides at Otford, of 30 hides at Graveney and so
forth. The figures are so little in harmony with D. B. and
with the other Canterbury charters that we may suspect the
100 manses at Otford of covering many smaller estates, each
of which appears elsewhere with a name of its own.

[1529] In D. B. i. 12 b St. Augustin holds 30 solins at Norborne. In
618 Eadbald of Kent, K. 6 (i. 9), gave 30 _aratra_ at
Nortburne; but the deed is spurious. In D. B. 5 b, Rochester
has 3 solins at Totesclive, 6 at Hallinges, 2-1/2 at
Coclestane, 3 at Mellingetes, 6 at Bronlei. In 788 Offa, K.
152 (i. 183), gave 6 _aratra_ at Trottesclib. Egbert, K. 160
(i. 193), gave 10 at Hallingas. In 880 Æthelstan, K. 312 (ii.
109), B. ii. 168, gave 3 at Cucolanstan. Edmund, K. 409 (ii.
265), gave 3 at Meallingas. In 998 Æthelred, K. 700 (iii.
305), gave 6 at Brunleage. The Rochester deeds therefore may
point to some reduction; but they do not tell of any
startling change.

[1530] Meitzen, op. cit. ii. 101, holds that the Euti who invaded
Kent fitted themselves into an agrarian framework prepared by
Celts. They came not, like the great mass of Saxons and
Angles, from a country in which villages of the Germanic type
had grown up, but from an originally Celtic land, which they
while still in the pastoral state had seized and subjugated.
It is an interesting though hazardous speculation. Certainly
some cause or another keeps Kent apart from the rest of
England.

[1531] Thus, K. 371 (ii. 207): Æthelstan gives to the church of
Exeter 6 _perticae_ (yard-lands?). B. ii. 433: he gives one
cassate to St Petroc. K. 787 (iv. 115): the Confessor gives a
_pertica_ and a half in Cornwall. Crawford Charters, pp.
1-43: Æthelheard gives 20 cassates at Crediton; that is, a
dozen of our parishes. Ibid. p. 9: a single yard of land is
gaged for 30 mancuses of gold. K. 1306 (vi. 163): in 739
Æthelred gives 3 _perticae_ to Athelney. K. 1324 (vi. 188):
Cnut gives to Athelney _duas mansas siue (= et) unam
perticam_.

[1532] K. 1143 (v. 278); B. ii. 527. For the _arepennis_ see
Meitzen, op. cit. i. 278, where an explanation derived from
the Irish laws is given of its name.

[1533] See above, p. 451.

[1534] The lords of Cambridgeshire may have done good service during
the campaign in the Isle of Ely.

[1535] Pearson's _valuit_ is £491; his _valet_ £736.

[1536] The appearance of the curious _hida_ may lead to the guess
that if the geld be at two shillings, it is the
Leicestershire _hida_, not the Leicestershire _carucata_
which pays this sum. But (1) if the _hida_ contains 18, or
even 12, carucates we shall then have on our hands a case of
extreme under-taxation; and (2) this will not account for the
fact that an exceedingly small value is given to the land
that a team ploughs.

[1537] D. B. i. 233.

[1538] At the end of the account of the land between Ribble and
Mersey (i. 240) we are told that there were altogether 79
_hidae_ which T. R. E. were worth £145. 2_s._ 2_d._ This
would give a very small value for the carucate, if the _hida_
of this district had six carucates; and in many cases 2_s._
8_d._ is the value assigned to the carucate. If to a
two-shilling geld the _hida_ paid but two shillings, this is
a bad, though not unprecedented, case of under-taxation. On
the other hand, if the carucate paid two shillings, its value
has been stated in some abnormal fashion. I do not think it
out of the question that the _hidae_ of Leicestershire and
Lancashire are modern arrangements designed to give relief in
some manner or another to districts which have been too
heavily burdened with carucates.

[1539] It may, however, have been applied to the conquered West
Wales from an early time. See above, p. 467.

[1540] See above, p. 427.

[1541] D. B. i. 293 b.

[1542] And two sokemen with two teams.

[1543] The artificiality or traditionality of the teamland is even
more obvious in D. B. than it is in our statement. At Okeham
are 4 hides; land for 16 teams. The men have 37. The king has
2 in his demesne 'et tamen aliae quatuor possunt esse.' So
what is land for 16 teams is not only stocked but
insufficiently stocked with 39. The manor of one carucate
held by Leuenot seems to be another infringement of the
traditional scheme, unless that carucate has been already
reckoned among the four at Okeham.

[1544] Many other instances suggesting the artificiality of _B_
might be given from northern counties; e.g. in Northampton
(i. 227) we have five consecutive entries in which _A_ = 2,
2, 2, 0·5, 4; _B_ = 5, 5, 5, 1·25, 10; _C_ = 3, 2, 5, 1, 8.
See also Round, Feudal England, 90.

[1545] D. B. i. 323 b.

[1546] D. B. i. 299 Walesgrif £56; 299 b Poclinton £56; 309
Ghellinghes £56; 305 Witebi £112. It will be remembered that,
as our hundred-weight (112 lbs) shows, 112 can be called a
hundred.

[1547] Pipe Rolls, 2. 3. 4. 5. Hen. II. In a few cases the earlier
_donum_ includes a composition 'for murders and pleas.' That
from Yorkshire is partly paid by York, that from
Gloucestershire by Gloucester.

[1548] Nearly.

[1549] Except the 'hides,' if hides they be, of Leicestershire and
Lancashire.

[1550] D. B. i. 35 (Surrey).

[1551] D. B. i. 49 b (Hants).

[1552] D. B. i. 364 (Lincoln).

[1553] See above, p. 394.

[1554] This part of the evidence is set out in Mr Round's Feudal
England, 37-44. I have gone through all the calculations. His
results are hardly different from those which I have obtained
and therefore I dwell no longer on this part of the case, for
it has been well stated.

[1555] D. B. i. 192; iv. 107. The Inquisitio Eliensis puts the
number of cottiers at 18, while Domesday gives 28. See
Hamilton's edition, p. 119.

[1556] Downham, Witchford, Sutton, 'Helle,' Wilburton, Stretham,
Stuntney, Doddington.

[1557] Wichford, D. B. i. 192; iv. 507; Hamilton, 119.

[1558] Witcham, Whittlesey, Lindon, Wentworth, Chatteris, Wisbeach,
Littleport.

[1559] Wisbeach, 3-1/2 H. + 1 V. + 150 A. + 2-1/2 H. = 10 H.

[1560] In giving the sum of the particulars I add hides to hides,
virgates to virgates, acres to acres, but I make no
assumption as to the number of acres or virgates in the hide.

[1561] D. B. iv. 4, 9, 16.

[1562] D. B. iv. 22.

[1563] D. B. iv. 1, 6, 13.

[1564] D. B. iv. 3, 8, 15 (Melchesham).

[1565] D. B. iv. 3-4, 9, 15 (Chinbrige).

[1566] D. B. iv. 61-2-3.

[1567] D. B. iv. 23 (Hunesberge); see also Langeberge on the same
page.

[1568] Round in Domesday Studies, i. 212: 'I have worked through the
_Inquisitio Geldi_ with this special object, but found to my
disappointment that the odd acres which paid geld on this
occasion did not pay at a uniform rate, some paying twice as
much as others.'

[1569] D. B. ii. 19: 'Ratendunam tenuit S. Adelred T. R. E. ... pro
20 hidis. Modo pro 16 hidis et dimidia.... Et 30 acras tenet
Siward de S. Adelred. Modo tenet Ranulfus Piperellus de rege,
set hundret testatur de abbatia. Et 3 hidas et 30 acras quas
tenuit ecclesia et Leuesunus de ea T. R. E. modo tenet Eudo
de abbate.' I think that this involves the statement:

16-1/2 H. + 30 A. + 3 H. + 30 A. = 20 H.

[1570] D. B. ii. 3, 11, 33, 63 b, 78 b, and in many other places.

[1571] Ibid. 31.

[1572] Ibid. 6 b, 42 b.

[1573] Ibid. 46.

[1574] Ibid. 48.

[1575] Ibid. 6 b, 49, 60.

[1576] Ibid. 43.

[1577] Ibid. 74.

[1578] Ibid. 1 b.

[1579] Ibid. 11 b, 30 b, 31, 47 b.

[1580] Ibid. 72.

[1581] Ibid. 21 b.

[1582] Ibid. 16, 15.

[1583] D. B. ii. 79.

[1584] Some other fractions into which a hide would easily break by
inheritance and partition can be expressed in various ways.
Thus two-thirds of a hide can be expressed as 80 A. or as
'half a hide and 20 acres.' Three-quarters of a hide appears
sometimes as 'half a hide and 30 A.,' sometimes as 'a hide
less 30 A.' We might add to our other arguments derived from
Essex that used by Morgan (op. cit., p. 31). It seems fairly
clear that the holding of Roger 'God Bless the Dames', which
is called 3 V. in one place is called 1/2 H. + 30 A. in
another place (D. B. iv. 21 b, 96 b).

[1585] D. B. i. 141 b, Wallingtone.

[1586] D. B. i. 141, Stuterehele.

[1587] D. B. i. 165. There is here a transition from geldable area
to real area. This land is rated at a hide, but when you come
to plough it, you will find only 64 acres.

[1588] D. B. i. 93 b, Dudesham; iv. 396.

[1589] D. B. i. 79 b. Eyton, Dorset, 16, says that this is a clumsy
way of describing 1 H. + 1 A. Round, Domesday Studies, i.
213, makes some just remarks on Eyton's treatment of this
passage.

[1590] D. B. i. 95 b, Ecewiche; iv. 333.

[1591] D. B. ii. 389 (Cratingas). In Northamptonshire also there is
talk of virgates; e.g. D. B. 225 b, 226 b: 3V. - 1 B.; 2 V. +
1 B.

[1592] D. B. ii. 377 b.

[1593] D. B. i. 276 b, 278.

[1594] If I hold two and a half acres in one place and three roods
in a neighbouring place and you ask me how much land I have,
I may tell you that I have two and a half acres and three
roods. If you ask me how much money I have in my purse, I may
tell you that I have half-a-crown and three shillings. But
returns to governmental inquiries would not be habitually
made in this way.

[1595] D. B. i. 13: 'pro uno solin se defendit; tria iuga sunt infra
divisionem Hugonis et quartum iugum est extra.'

[1596] D. B. i. 2.

[1597] Elton, Tenures of Kent, 133-4.

[1598] D. B. i. 12 b.

[1599] D. B. i. 9 b.

[1600] D. B. i. 12.

[1601] Kemble, Saxons, ch. iv. and App. B.

[1602] Saxons, i. 490.

[1603] D. B. iv. 42. Cf. D. B. i. 81 b.

[1604] Robertson, Hist. Essays, 95, 96. He has entirely
misunderstood the entry touching the hundred of Ailestebba.
The equation involved in it is merely the following: 16 H.
(i.e. 10 + 4-1/2 + 1-1/2) + 37 H. + 20 H. = 73 H.

[1605] Eyton, Dorset, 15; Bound in Domesday Studies, i. 213.

[1606] Dr Isaac Taylor, The Ploughland and the Plough, in Domesday
Studies, i. 143. Of this paper there is an excellent review
by W. H. Stevenson in Engl. Hist. Rev. v. 142.

[1607] Domesday Studies, 150; D. B. i. 324.

[1608] D. B. i. 311 b.

[1609] Round, Feudal England, 60.

[1610] See above, p. 397.

[1611] See above, pp. 402, 435.

[1612] See above, p. 471.

[1613] See above, p. 480.

[1614] Dial. de Scac. i. 17.

[1615] The appearance in D. B. of a few 'hides' which apparently
consist altogether of wood-land (e.g. ii. 55 b) is one of the
many signs that the fiscal hide has diverged from its
original pattern. A block of wood-land would not be 'the land
of one family.'

§ 3. _Beyond Domesday._

[The hide beyond Domesday.]

We have now seen a good deal of evidence which tends to prove that the hide has had for its model a tenement comprising 120 acres of arable land or thereabouts. Some slight evidence of this we have seen on the face of the Anglo-Saxon land-books[1616]. A little more evidence pointing in the same direction we have seen in the manorial extents of a later day[1617]. And now we have argued that the fiscal hide of the Conqueror's day is composed of 120 (fiscal) acres. From all this we are inclined to infer that the hide has, if we may so speak, started by being a tenement which, if it attained its ideal, would comprise a long-hundred of arable acre-strips, and thence to infer that in the very old days of conquest and settlement the free family or the free house-father commonly and normally possessed a tenement of this large size.

We have now to confess that this theory is open to attack, and must endeavour to defend it, or rather to explain why we think that, when all objections have been weighed, the balance of probability still inclines in its favour.

[Arguments in favour of the small hide.]

That all along from Bede's day downwards Englishmen have had in their minds a typical tenement and have been making this idea the framework of their scheme of government can not be doubted. Nor can we doubt that this idea has had some foundation in fact. It could not occur to any one except in a country where a large and preponderant number of tenements really, if roughly, conformed to a single type. Therefore the contest must be, and indeed has been, between the champions of different typical tenements, and in the main there are but two theories in the field. The one would give the Anglo-Saxon hide its long-hundred of acres, the other would concede to it but some thirty or forty, and would in effect equate it with the virgate rather than with the hide of later days[1618]. Perhaps we may briefly state the arguments which have been urged in favour of this small hide by saying that small hides are requisite (1) if we are to find room enough within the appropriate areal boundaries for the hides that are distributed by Domesday Book and the Anglo-Saxon charters, (2) if we are to explain the large quantities of hides or family-lands which are assigned to divers districts by Bede and by that ancient document which we call The Tribal Hidage, (3) if we are to bring our own typical tenement into line with the typical tenement of Germany, (4) if we are not to overdo our family or house-father with arable acres and bushels of corn.

[Continuity in the hide of the land-books.]

A 'name-shifting' must be postulated. Somehow or another, what was the hide becomes the virgate, while the name 'hide' is transferred to a much larger unit. Now in such a name-shifting there is nothing that is very improbable, if we approach the matter _a priori_. Thought has been poor and language has been poor. The term 'yard of land' may, as we have seen[1619], stand for a quarter-acre or for a much larger space. But this particular name-shifting seems to us improbable in a high degree. For when did it happen? Surely it did not happen after the Norman Conquest. We have from Edward the Confessor quite enough documents to warrant our saying with certainty that the hides and manses of his charters are the hides of Domesday Book. Suppose for a moment that all these parchments were forged after the Conquest, this would only strengthen our case, for stupid indeed must the forger have been who did not remember that if he was to make a title-deed for the abbey's lands he must multiply the hides by four or thereabouts. This argument will carry us far. We trace the stream of land-books back from Edward to Cnut, to Æthelred, to Edgar, to Offa, nay, to the very days of Bede; nowhere can we see any such breach of continuity as that which would appear had the hypothetical name-shifting taken place. The forgers know nothing of it. Boldly they make the first Christian kings bestow upon the church just about the number of manses that the church has in the eleventh century if the manse be Domesday's hide.

[Examples from charters of Chertsey.]

Both points might be illustrated by the Chertsey charters. In Domesday Book St. Peter of Chertsey is credited with many hides in divers parts of Surrey[1620]. A charter is forthcoming whereby Edward the Confessor confirms the abbey's possession of these estates[1621], and in the main the number of 'manses' that this charter locates in any village is the number of 'hides' that the abbey will have there in the year 1086. The two lists are not and ought not to be identical, for there have been rearrangements; but obviously the manse of the one is the hide of the other. Then the monks have books which profess to come from the seventh century[1622] and to show how Frithwald the kingling of Surrey endowed their monastery. These books may be forgeries; but the scale on which they are forged is the scale of the Confessor's charter and of Domesday Book. It has been thought that they are as old as Edgar's day[1623]; but at any rate their makers did not suppose that in order to tell a profitable story they must portray Frithwald bestowing four manses for every hide that the abbey possessed.

[Examples from charters of Malmesbury.]

Or look we at the estates of St. Aldhelm. The monks of Malmesbury have a book from the Confessor[1624] which agrees very accurately, perhaps too accurately, with the Domesday record[1625]. The latter ascribes to their house (among other lands) 10 hides at Dauntsey, 5 at Somerford, 5 at Norton, 30 at Kemble 35 at Purton. The Confessor has confirmed to them (among other lands) 10 'hides' at Dauntsey given by Æthelwulf, 5 at Somerford and 5 at Norton given by Æthelstan, 30 at Kemble and 35 at Purton given by Ceadwealla. Then behind this book are older books. Here is one dated in 931 by which Æthelstan gives _quinque mansas_ at Somerford and _quinque mansas_ at Norton[1626]. Here is another dated in 850 by which Æthelwulf gives _decem mansiones_ at Dauntsey[1627]. Here is a third by which in 796 Egfrith restores that _terram xxxv manentium_ at Purton[1628]. Here from 682, from the days of Aldhelm himself, is a deed of Ceadwealla bestowing _xxxii cassatos_ at Kemble[1629]. It is pretty; it is much too pretty; but it is good proof that the Malmesbury monks know nothing of any change in the conveyancer's unit[1630].

[Permanence of the hidation.]

If we examine any reputable set of land-books, those of Worcester, for example, or those of Abingdon and try to trace the history of those very hides the existence of which is chronicled by Domesday Book, we shall often fail. This was to be expected. Any one who has 'read with a conveyancer' will know that many difficulties are apt to arise when an attempt is made to identify the piece of land described in one with that described in another and much older document. In the days before the Conquest many causes were perplexing our task. We have spoken of them before, but will recall them to memory. New assessments were sometimes made, and thenceforth an estate which had formerly contained five hides might be spoken of as having only four. New villages were formed, and the hides which had been attributed to one place would thenceforth be attributed to another. Great landlords enjoyed a large power of rearranging their lands, not only for the purposes of their own economy, but also for the purposes of public finance. In some cases they had collected their estates into a few gigantic _maneria_ each of which would pay a single round sum to the king[1631]. Lastly, the kings gave and the kings took away. The disendowment of churches and simple spoliation were not unknown; exchanges were frequent; no series of land-books is complete. But when some allowance has been made for the effects of these causes, we shall see plainly that, if the charters are to account for the facts displayed by Domesday Book, then the manses of the charters, even of the earliest charters, can not have been of much less extent than the hides of the Norman record. We know of no case in which a church, whatever its wealth of genuine and spurious parchments, could make a title to many more manses than the hides that it had in 1086[1632].

[Gifts of villages.]

Another test of continuity may be applied. In the Conqueror's day a village in the south of England will very commonly be rated at five or some low multiple of five hides, ten, fifteen or twenty[1633]. Now we have argued above that the land-book of an Anglo-Saxon king generally, though not always, disposes of an integral village or several integral villages, and if we look at the land-books we shall commonly see that the manses or hides which they describe as being at a single place are in number five or some low multiple of five. We open the second volume of the Codex Diplomaticus and analyze the first hundred instances of royal gifts which do not bear a condemnatory asterisk and which are not gifts of small plots in or about the towns of Canterbury and Rochester. In date these land-books range from A.D. 840 to A.D. 956. In sixty out of a hundred cases the number of manses is 5 or a multiple of 5. In eighteen it is 5; in sixteen 10; in six 15; in thirteen 20; in three 25; in one 30; in one 80; in two 100. There are a few small gifts; one of a yokelet; six of 1 manse; four of 2 manses; five of 3. The great bulk of the gifts range from 5 to 25 manses. Only four out of 100 exceed 25; of these four, one is of 30, another of 80, while two are of 100. At this rate of progress and if the manse had no more than some 30 acres, we shall have extreme difficulty in accounting for the large territories which on the eve of the Conquest were held by the churches of Wessex, and by those very churches which have left us cartularies that are only too ample. This is not all. If these manses were but yard-lands, then, unless we suppose that the average village was a tiny cluster, it is plain enough that the kings did not usually give away integral villages, and yet a church's lordship of integral villages and even of divers contiguous villages is one of the surest and most impressive traits that the Conqueror's record reveals.

[Gifts of manses in villages.]

Parenthetically we may admit that the king is not always giving away a whole village. Nasse has contended that when a land-book professes to dispose of a certain number (_x_) of manses at the place called _X_, and then sets forth the boundaries of _X_, we must not infer that the whole of the land that lies within those boundaries is comprised in the grant[1634]. The proof of this consists of a few instances in which, to all appearance, two different tracts of land are conveyed by two different books and yet the boundaries stated in those two books are the same. We will allege one instance additional to those that have been mentioned by others. In 969 Bishop Oswald of Worcester gave to his man Æthelweard seven manses, whereof five lay in the place called Tedington. The book which effected this conveyance states the bounds of Tedington[1635]. In 977 the same bishop gave to his man Eadric three manses at Tedington by a book which describes the boundaries of that place in just the same manner as that in which they were set forth by the earlier charter[1636]. Some care, however, should be taken before we assume that the two deeds which deal with land at _X_ dispose of different tracts; for book-land had a way of returning to the king who gave it; also the gift of one king was sometimes confirmed by another; and even if the one book purports to convey _x_ and the other _y_ manses, we must call to mind the possibility that there has been a reassessment or a clerical error. Still it seems to be fairly well proved that there are cases in which the _x_ manses which the donor gives are but some of the manses that lie within the meres drawn by his deed of gift. This certainly deserves remark. At first sight nothing could look more foolish than that we should painfully define the limits of the village territory and yet leave undefined the limits of that part of the village territory which we are giving away. But this practice is explicable if we remember the nature of a manse in a village. It consists of many scattered strips of arable land and of rights over uncultivated waste. To define the limits of the whole territory is important, for the donee should know how far his cattle can wander without trespass. To specify each acre-strip would, on the other hand, be a tedious task and would serve no profitable end. However, there can be little doubt that very generally what a charter bestows is the whole of the land of which the boundaries are described, and therefore the whole territory of a village or of several neighbouring villages.

[The largest gifts.]

But at the moment the charters which will be the most instructive will be those which attribute to a single place some large number of hides. In these the champions of a small hide have found their stronghold. They see perhaps 100 hides ascribed to the place called _X_; they look for that place in modern maps and gazetteers and then tell us that in order to pack our 100 hides within the parochial boundary we must reduce the size of the hide to 30 acres at the most.

[The Winchester estate at at Chilcombe.]

The dangers that beset this process may be well illustrated by the documents relating to one of the most interesting estates in all England, the great Chilcombe estate of the church of Winchester, which stretched for many a mile from the gates of the royal city of the West Saxon kings. Let us follow the story as the monks told it in a series of charters, few of which have escaped Kemble's asterisk. In the first days of English Christianity, Cynegils, king of the West Saxons, gave the Chilcombe valley to St. Birinus. King after king confirmed the gift, but it was never put into writing until the days of Æthelwulf. He declared by charter that this land should defend itself for one hide. This was part of that great tithing operation which puzzles the modern historian[1637]. In 908 Edward the Elder confirmed this act by a charter in which he declared that the land at Chilcombe (including that at Nursling and Chilbolton) contained 100 manses, but that the whole was to be reckoned as a single manse. He also remarked that the land included many _villae_[1638]. The next book comes from Æthelstan; the whole valley (_vallis illuster Ciltecumb appellata_) with all its appendages was to owe the service of a single manse[1639]. Two charters were obtained from Edgar. However much land there might be at Chilcombe, it was to defend itself for one hide[1640]. A writ of similar import, which Kemble has accepted, was issued by Æthelred the Unready[1641]. It said that there were a hundred hides at Chilcombe and proceeded to allot them thus:--

Æstun 4 Easton
Afintun and Ufintun 5 Avington and Ovington
Ticceburn 25 Titchbourne
Cymestun 5 Kilmiston
Stoke 5 Bishopstoke
Brombrygce and Oterburn 5 Brambridge and Otterbourne
Twyfyrde 20 Twyford
Ceolbandingtun 20 Chilbolton
Hnutscilling 5 Nursling

This territory extends along the left-hand bank of the Itchen from Kilmiston to Titchbourne, thence past Ovington, Avington, Easton, Chilcombe, and Winchester itself, Twyford, Brambridge, Otterbourne to Bishopstoke. If we journeyed by straight lines from village to village we should find that our course was a long twenty miles. Then, to complete the 100 hides, Nursling which is near Southampton and Chilbolton which is near Andover are thrown in. But all these lands lie 'into Ciltecumbe.'

[The many hides at Chilcombe.]

It is to be feared that these charters tell lies invented by those who wished to evade their share of national burdens. And they seem to have failed in their object, for in the Confessor's day, though a very large estate at 'Chilcombe' with nine churches upon it was rated at but one hide, several of the other villages that we have mentioned were separately assessed[1642]. But to lie themselves into an immunity from taxes, this the monks might hope to do; to lie themselves into the possession of square leagues of land, this would have been an impossible feat, and the solid fact remains that their church was the lord of a spacious and continuous block of territory in the very heart of the old West Saxon realm, just outside the gates of the royal burg, along the Itchen river, the land that would be seized and settled at the earliest moment. The best explanation that they could give of this fact was that the first Christian kings had bestowed mile after mile of land upon the minster. What better theory have we[1643]?

[The Winchester estates at Downton and Taunton.]

The truth seems to be that some of the very earliest gifts of land that were made to the churches might, if we have regard to the size of the existing kingdoms, be fairly called the cession of provinces, the cession of large governmental and jurisdictional districts. The bishops want a revenue, and in the earliest days a large district must be ceded if even a modest revenue is to be produced, for all that the king has to give away is the chieftain's right to live at the expense of the folk and to receive the proceeds of justice. Therefore not only whole villages but whole hundreds were given. Chilcombe was by no means the only vast estate that the bishop of the West Saxons acquired in very early days. Domesday Book shows us how at Downton in Wiltshire the church of Winchester has had a round 100 hides[1644]. For these 100 hides we have a series of charters which professes to begin in the days when the men of Wessex were accepting the new faith. They bear the names of Cenwealla[1645], Egbert[1646], Edward[1647], Æthelstan[1648], Edred[1649], Edgar[1650], and Æthelred[1651]. Kemble has accepted the last four of them. They tell a consistent story. There were 100 manses at Downton, or, to speak more accurately, 55 at Downton itself and 45 at Ebbesborne (the modern Bishopston) on the other side of the Avon[1652]. We might speak of other extensive tracts, of Farnham where there have been 60 hides[1653], of Alresford where there have been 51[1654], of Mitcheldever where there have been 106[1655], of Taunton where there have been 54 and more[1656]. Whenever the West Saxons conquer new lands they cede a wide province to their bishop. But perhaps we have already said more than enough of these cessions, though in our eyes they are very important; they are among the first manifestations of incipient feudalism and feudalism brings manorialism in its train. We have recurred to them here because the Winchester charters which describe them testify strongly to the continuity of the hide and also indicate the weak point in the arguments that are urged by the advocates of little hides[1657].

[Kemble and the Taunton estate.]

Kemble has argued that it is impossible for us to allow the hide of Domesday Book or the hide or manse of the charters as many as 120 acres. Take a village, discover how many hides are ascribed to it, discover how many acres it has at the present day, you will often find that the whole territory of the village will not suffice to supply the requisite number of hides if the hide is to have 120 or even 60 acres. Kemble illustrates this method by taking nine vills in Somerset and Devon. One of them is Taunton. Modern Taunton, he says, has 2730 acres, the Tantone of 1086 had 65 hides[1658]; multiply 65 even by so low a figure as 40 and you will nearly exhaust all Taunton's soil[1658]. This argument involves the assumption that the limits of modern Taunton include the whole land that is ascribed to 'Tantone' in the Conqueror's geld-book. Strangely different was the result to which Eyton came after a minute examination of the whole survey of Somersetshire. The 'Tantone' of Domesday covers some thirteen or fourteen villages and is now represented not by 2730 but by 24,000 acres[1659]. The editor of the Anglo-Saxon charters should have guessed that many hides 'lay in' Taunton which as a matter of physical geography were far off from the walls of the bishop's burg[1660]. There are counties in which the list of the places that are mentioned in Domesday is so nearly identical with the list of our modern parishes, that no very great risk would be run if we circumspectly pursued Kemble's method; but just in those counties to which he applied it the risk is immeasurably great, for it is the land where many villages are often collected into one great _manerium_ and all their hides are spoken of as lying in one place. Not until we have compared the whole survey of the county with the whole of its modern map, are we entitled to make even a guess as to the amount of land that a place-name covers. Often enough in those shires where there are large and ancient ecclesiastical estates, those shires in which the feudal and manorial development began earliest and has gone furthest, hides 'are' in law where they are not in fact. They 'lie into' the hall at which they geld or the moot-stow to which they render soke, and this may be far distant from their natural bed[1661].

[Difficulty of identifying parcels.]

As we go backwards this danger is complicated by another, namely, by the growth of new villages. The village of Hamton has been a large village with 20 hides. Some of its arable land has lain two or three miles from the clustered steads. A partition of its fields is made and a new cluster of steads is formed; for housebuilding is not a lengthy or costly process. And so Little Hamton or 'Other' Hamton with 5 hides splits off from the old Hamton which has 15. We must not now try to force 20 hides into the territory of either village[1662]. And as this danger increases, the other hardly diminishes, for we come to the time when a king will sometimes give a large jurisdictional district and call it all by one name. If the once heathen Osric of the Hwiccas gave to a church '100 _manentes_ adjoining the city that is called the Hot Baths,' he in all probability gave away the 'hundred' of Bath; he gave Bath itself and a territory which in the eleventh century was the site of a dozen villages[1663]. We have the best reason for believing that when a king of the eighth century says that he is giving 20 manses in the place called Cridie he is giving his rights over a tract which comprises ten or twelve of our modern parishes and more than the whole of the modern hundred of Crediton[1664].

[The numerous hides in ancient documents.]

We have given above some figures which will enable our readers to compare the hides and the teamlands of a county with its modern acreage. Also we have confessed to thinking that we can hardly concede to every teamland that Domesday mentions 120 statute acres of arable land[1665]. On the other hand, we do not think that there would in general be much difficulty in finding 120 arable acres for every fiscal hide, though perhaps in the south the average size of the acre would be small[1666]. However, we have admitted, or rather contended, that before the middle of the eleventh century the hides of the fiscal system had strayed far away from the original type, and the sight of an over-hided vill would not disconcert us. But unfortunately we can not be content with such results as we have as yet attained. We have already seen that the hides attributed to a district show a tendency to increase their number as we trace them backwards[1667], and there are certain old documents which deal out hides so lavishly that we must seriously face the question whether, notwithstanding the continuity of the land-books, we must not suppose that some large change has taken place in the character of the typical tenement.

[_The Burghal Hidage._]

We have said above that we have inherited three ancient documents which distribute hides among districts. We call them in order of date (1) The Tribal Hidage, (2) The Burghal Hidage, (3) The County Hidage. Of the youngest we have spoken. We must now attend to that which holds the middle place. It states that large round numbers of hides belong to certain places, which seem to be strongholds. The sense in which a large number of hides might belong to a _burh_ will be clear to those who have read the foregoing pages[1668]. This document has only come down to us in a corrupt form, but it has come from a remote time and seems to represent a scheme of West-Saxon defence which was antiquated long years before the coming of the Normans. We will give its effect, preserving the most important variants and adding within brackets some guesses of our own.

THE BURGHAL HIDAGE[1669]
Hides.
to Heorepeburan, Heorewburan[1670] 324
to Hastingecestre [Hastings] 15 or 500
to Lathe, Lawe [Lewes][1671] 1300
to Burhham [Burpham near Arundel] 726
to Cisseceastre [Chichester] 1500
to Portecheastre [Porchester] 650
to Hamtona and to Wincestre [Southampton and Winchester] 2400
to Piltone, Pistone[1672], Wiltone [Wilton] 1400
to Tysanbyring [Tisbury][1673] 700
to Soraflesbyring, Soraflesburieg, Sceaftesbyrig [Shaftesbury] 700
to Thoriham, Tweonham, Twenham [Twyneham][1674] 470
to Weareham [Wareham] 1600
to Brydian [Bridport or more probably Bredy][1675] 1760
to Excencestre [Exeter] 734
to Halganwille, Hallgan Wylla [Halwell][1676] 300
to Hlidan, Hlida [Lidford] 140
to Wiltone Wisbearstaple, Piltone wið Bearstaple [Pilton[1677]
with Barnstaple] 360
to Weted, Weced [Watchet][1678] 513
to Orenbrege, Oxenebrege, Axanbrige [Axbridge] 400
to Lenge, Lengen [Lyng][1679] 100
to Langiord, Langport [Langport] 600
to Bathan, Badecan, Baderan [Bath] 3200(?)
to Malmesberinge [Malmesbury] 1500
to Croccegelate, Croccagelada [Cricklade] 1003 or 1300
to Oxeforde and to Wallingeforde [Oxford and Wallingford] 2400
to Buckingham and to Sceaftelege, Sceafteslege, Steaftesege
[Buckingham and ?][1680] 600 or 1500
to Eschingum and to Suthringa geweorc [Southwark
and Eashing][1681] 1800

These figures having been stated, we are told that they make a total of 27,070 hides[1682]. And then we read 'et triginta[1683] to Astsexum [_al._ Westsexum], and to Wygraceastrum mcc, hydas. to Wæringewice [_al._ Parlingewice] feower and xxiiii. hund hyda.'

[Meaning of _The Burghal Hidage._]

Apparently we start at some burg in the extreme east of Sussex, go through Hastings, Lewes, Burpham, Chichester, Porchester, and then pass through Hampshire, through the south of Wiltshire, through Dorset to Devon, keeping always well to the south. Then in Devon we turn to the north and retrace our steps by moving to the east along a more northerly route than that which we followed in the first instance. In short, we make a round of Wessex and end at Southwark. This done, we cast up the number of hides and find them to be somewhat more than 27,000. Then in what may be a postscript the remark is made that to Essex and Worcester belong 1200 hides (probably 1200 apiece) and to Warwick 2404. The writer seems to know Wessex pretty thoroughly; of the rest of England he (if he added the postscript) has little to tell us. We might perhaps imagine him drawing up this statement under Edward the Elder[1684]. He hears reports of what has been done to make Essex defensible and of two famous burgs built in Mercia; but the military system of Wessex he knows[1685]. Of a military system it is that he is telling us. He does not take the counties of Wessex one by one; he visits the burgs, and his tour through them takes him twice through Wiltshire: westwards along a southerly and eastwards along a northerly line.

It is an artificial system that he discloses to us. The 324 hides allotted to 'Heorepeburan' (a place that eludes us) may seem insufficiently round until we add it to the 726 given to 'Burhham.' The Wiltshire burgs seem to be grouped thus:--

Wilton 1400}
Tisbury 700} 2800}
Shaftesbury 700} } 5600
Malmesbury 1500} 2800}
Cricklade 1300}

[_The Burghal Hidage_ and later documents.]

To compare these figures with those given in Domesday Book and in The County Hidage is not a straightforward task, for the military districts of 900 may not have been coincident with the counties of 1086, and, for example, Bath may have been supported partly by Gloucestershire and partly by Somerset[1686]. The best comparison that we can make is the following:--

Burghal Hidage County Hidage Domesday Book
Sussex[1687] 4350 3474
Surrey[1688] 1800 (or 3600) 1830
Hampshire[1689] 3520 2588
Berkshire[1690] 2400 2473
Wiltshire[1691] 5600 4800 4050
Dorset[1692] 3360 2321
Somerset[1693] 4813 2951
Devon[1694] 1534 1119
Oxford 2400 2400 2412
Buckingham 1500 2074
Essex(?) 1200 2650
Worcester 1200 1200 1189
Warwick 2404 1200 1338