Chapter XXI: Appendix: B

THE HÍD.

From the tables in the above chapter, it appears that we cannot allow one hundred actual acres to the Híd, and still less one hundred and twenty. A similar result will be obtained if we examine the entries in Domesday. Thus

┌─────────────────────────┬─────┬────────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┐ │Name │Hides│Acreage.│ At 30│ At 40│At 100│At 120│Excess│Excess│ │ │ │ │acres.│acres.│acres.│acres.│at 30.│at 40.│ ├─────────────────────────┼─────┼────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┤ │Keynsham, _Somers._ │ 50│ 3330│ 1500│ 2000│ 5000│ 6000│ 1830│ 1330│ │Dowlish, _Somers._ │ 9│ 680│ 270│ 360│ 900│ 1080│ 410│ 320│ │Easton in Gordano, │ 20│ 1440│ 600│ 800│ 2000│ 2400│ 840│ 640│ │ _Somers._[838] │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Babington, _Somers._[839]│ 5│ 600│ 150│ 200│ 500│ 600│ 450│ 400│ │Lullington, │ 7│ 840│ 210│ 280│ 700│ 840│ 630│ 560│ │ _Somers._[840] │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Road, _Somers._[841] │ 9│ 1010│ 270│ 360│ 900│ 1080│ 740│ 650│ │Pilton, _Devon._[842] │ 20│ 1210│ 600│ 800│ 2000│ 2400│ 610│ 410│ │Taunton, _Somers._[843] │ 65│ 2730│ 1950│ 2600│ 6500│ 7800│ 780│ 130│ │Portshead with │ 11│ 1610│ 330│ 440│ 1100│ 1320│ 1280│ 1170│ │ Westbury,_Somers._[844]│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────┴─────┴────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┘

-----

Footnote 838:

Here are to be added 125 acres of meadow and wood, and one leuga of
pasture. (Domesd. iii. p. 133.)

Footnote 839:

Add 27 acres of mead and pasture, and a wood, 6 quadragenæ long by 2
quadr. wide. (Ibid. p. 137.)

Footnote 840:

Add 20 acres of mead and pasture, and a wood, 6 quadragenæ long by 2
wide. (Ibid. p. 137.)

Footnote 841:

Add 91 acres of mead, pasture and forest. (Ibid. p. 138.)

Footnote 842:

Add 86 acres of mead, etc., and a forest a leuga and a half square.
But there was also land not geldable which sufficed for 20 ploughs;
and the 20 geldable hides were calculated at 30 ploughs. Taking the
same proportion, we ought to reckon not 30 but 33⅓ hides in Pilton,
which at 30 acres would give 1000 arable; at 40 would give 1333⅓,
while the whole acreage is but 1210. This would exclude the
calculation of 40 acres; but we cannot trust the merely approximate
supposition that the land of 20 ploughs was to be reckoned in the same
proportion as that for 30.

Footnote 843:

Taunton properly is 52½ geldable hides, and land for 20 ploughs not
geldable. The 65 hides are made up subject to the same error as the
last calculation. The appendant manor of Lidgeard, with the meadow
pastures, etc., amounting to 519 acres, is also to be added, as well
as forest a leuga long, by a leuga wide, and pasture two leugæ long by
one wide.

Footnote 844:

To these add 149 acres of mead, etc. Forest 12 quad. long by 3 wide:
again forest 12 quad. long by 2 wide, and 6 quadragenæ of marsh.

-----

I have intentionally selected one or two examples where the whole acreage exactly makes up the sum of hides multiplied by 120, because it is probable that such instances may have led to that calculation: but it is necessary to bear in mind that the Híd is exclusively _arable_ land, and that in the case where the number of hides equalled the whole acreage, there could have been neither forest, nor meadow nor pasture. The notes on some of the entries will show how erroneous any such calculation would necessarily be. And lest this assertion that the híd is exclusive of unbroken land should appear unsupported, I wish the following data to be considered. But first we must see how the híd is distributed into its component parts. In Domesday the híd consists of four yard-lands, virga or virgata: and the virga of four farthings or farlings, ferlingus, ferlinus, ferdinus, fertinus: thus

1 fertin.
4 fertin. = 1 virg.
16 fertin. = 4 virg. = 1 hide,

whatever may have been the number of acres in the ferling. Again in Domesday, the amount of an estate held by any one is given, together with the amount of wood, meadow and pasture in his hands. If these be _included_ in the amount of the híd, or its parts, which the tenant held, we shall arrive at the following results; which (even for a moment taking the híd at 120 acres) are a series of _reductiones ad absurdum_. In the Exeter Domesday, fol. 205^b (vol. iii. 187) I find an estate valued at 11 acres: the pasture etc. mentioned as belonging to it is counted at 20 acres: these, it is clear, could not be comprised in the eleven. But let us take a few examples tabularly.

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Exon. Domesd. Holding. Pasture, At least. etc. ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── f. 210. vol. iii. 191. ½ hide. 93 acres. ∴ hide = 186 acres. f. 211. 191. 1 virg. 55 ∴ hide = 220 f. 211, b. 191. ⅓ ferl. (1⁄48 h.) 6 ∴ hide = 288 f. 211, b. 191. 1 virg. 40 ∴ hide = 160 f. 212. 191. ⅓ ferl. 4 ∴ hide = 192 f. 212. 192. 3 ferl. 40 ∴ hide = 213⅓ f. 213. 192. 1 hide. 164 ∴ hide = 164 f. 214. 193. 1 virg. 40 ∴ hide = 160 f. 216. 196. 1 virg. 37 ∴ hide = 148 f. 217. 197. 1 virg. 84 ∴ hide = 336 f. 218. 198. 1 hide. 310 ∴ hide = 310 f. 224. 203. 1 hide. 500 ∴ hide = 500 f. 224, b. 203. 1 ferl. 106 ∴ hide = 1696 f. 325. 204. 1 ferl. 103 ∴ hide = 1648

Now it is particularly necessary to bear in mind that these ridiculous amounts are the minimum; that in every case the arable land remains to be added to them, and in some cases whole square miles of forest and moorland. I conclude then that the wood, meadow and pasture were not included in the híd or arable, but were appurtenant to it. Sometimes indeed they bear a very small proportion to the arable, and to the number of cattle owned—a fact perhaps to be explained by the existence of extensive commons.

Let us now endeavour to settle the amount, as well as the proportions of the híd and its several parts. As I have said the híd consisted of four virgates, the virgate of four ferlings[845]. I do not give examples, because they may be found in every other entry in Domesday; but I may add that the gyld or tax payable to the king from the land, is based upon precisely the same calculation: the híd paid 6 shillings (worth now about 18_s._ 6_d._), the virgate 1_s._ 6_d._, and the ferling 18⁄4 or 4½_d._ Thus (Exon. D. f. 80, 80, b. vol. iii. p. 72) in the hundred of Meleborne, the king had £18 18_s._ 4½_d._ as geld from 63 hides and 1 ferling of land:

now 63×6_s._ = 378_s._

1 ferl. ×4½_d._ = 0_s._ 4½_d._ ... 378_s._
4½_d._ or 18_l._ 18_s._ 4½_d._

Again (fol. 80, b. iii. p. 73) the king had £9 10_s._ 8¼_d._ for 31 h. 3 v. ½ ferl.

_i.e._ 31 × 6_s._ = 186_s._

3 × 1_s._ 6_d._ = 4_s._ 6_d._

½ × 4½_d._ = 0_s._ 2¼_d._ 190_s._
8¼_d._ or 9_l._ 10. 8¼_d._

in which passage, ferlingus is used for the coin as well as the measure of land. Again (fol. 81, b. vol. iii. p. 74) the geld for 60 h. 3 v. 1½ ferl. was £18 5_s._ 0¾_d._ (“unum obolum et unum ferling”).

_i.e._ 60×6_s._ = 360_s._

3×1_s._ 6_d._ = 4_s._ 6_d._

1½×0_s._ 4½_d._ = 0_s._ 6¾_d._ 365_s._
0¾_d._ or 18_l._ 5_s._ 0¾_d._

Or to test it another way; the híd = 16 ferlings, ∴ 60 h. 3 v. 1½ ferl. = 973½ ferl. But the ferl. paid 4½_d._ ∴ 973½ ferl. paid 4380¾_d._ which gives us the same value 18_l._ 5_s._ 0¾_d._

-----

Footnote 845:

From _feower_, four. _Feorling_ or _Feorðing_ are similar formations,
and denote a fourth, or farthing in money or land: also in corn (a
quarter of corn), and in the wards of a city. Ellis. Introd. p. l.

-----

Now if we can obtain the value of any one of these denominations, we can calculate all the rest with security. The value of the virga or yardland we can obtain: it consisted of _ten_ Norman agri, acræ or acres, perhaps eight or eight and a third Saxon.

In the Exeter Domesday, fol. 48 (vol. iii. p. 42) we find ten hides of land to be made up of the following parcels, 4 hides + 1 virg. + 10 agri + 5½ hides + 4 agri;

then 10 h. = 9½ h. + 1 v. + 10 a.
or 10 - 9½ h. = 1 v. + 10 a.
or ½ h. = 1 v. + 10 a.

But

½ h. = 2 v.
∴ 2 v. = 1 v. + 10 a.
2 - 1 v. = 10a. ∴ 1 virga = 10 agri.

But

1 hyd = 4 virg. = 16 ferling.
∴ 1 hyd = 40 acres = 33⅓ Saxon.
1 ferl. = 2½ acres = 21⁄12 Saxon.

It will now be seen why I have given a column in which the whole acreage was measured by a calculation of forty acres to the híd. That this result is a near approximation to the truth appears from the following considerations. In the Cornish Domesday, (a county where arable land bore a very small proportion to the markland, forest and pasture,) there are a great number of estates, valued at one ager or acre. These are generally said to pay geld for half a ferling. Thus in Treuurniuet, one ager paid geld for half a ferling[846]: so in Penquaro[847], in Trelamar[848], in Lantmatin[849], in Chilo^rgoret[850], in Roslet[851], in Pengelli[852], in Telbricg[853], in Karsalan[854], in Dimelihoc[855]; and similarly in Widewot, two agri paid geld for one ferling[856]. Now throughout Domesday there are innumerable examples of land being rated at less than its real value, or even at its real value; but I have not detected any instance in which it is rated at more: and in Cornwall especially the rating seems to have been in favour of the tenant. I do not therefore believe that one ager was _less_ than half a ferling: it was either more than half a ferling or equal to it. But ½ ferl. = 1¼ Norman acre, which is more than one statute acre; therefore we may conclude that the ager or acre was equal to half a ferling. The way I understand this, is by the assumption that the Saxon acre was somewhat larger than the Norman: we know that they differed in point of extent[857], and it is possible that the original Saxon calculation was founded upon multiples of eight, while the Norman was reduced to a decimal notation: if this were so, we may believe that the híd was the unit, and that its principal subdivisions remained, being familiar to the people, but that the value of the acre was slightly changed. Hence that the

Saxon híd = 32 Saxon acres = 40 Norman acres.
—— virg. = 8 —— —— = 10 —— ——
—— feorðing = 2 —— —— = 2½ —— ——

The document entituled “Rectitudines singularum personarum” says[858], that the poor settler on first coming in, ought to have seven acres laid down for him in seed, out of his yardland; and the same authority implies that his grass-land was usually short of his need: this it might be, if he had only one acre to support the two oxen and one cow with which his land was stocked on entry. The lot of meadow and pasture attached to these small plots of one ager, is so frequently quoted at thirty agri, in Cornwall, that one could almost imagine an enclosure-bill to have been passed just previous to the Conquest, under which the possession of even so small a quantity as one acre qualified the owner to receive a handsome share of the waste.

-----

Footnote 846:

Exon. D. f. 227. vol. iii. 206.

Footnote 847:

Ibid. f. 233. vol. iii. 212.

Footnote 848:

Ibid. f. 234. vol. iii. 213.

Footnote 849:

Ibid. f. 235. vol. iii. 214.

Footnote 850:

Ibid. f. 236, b. vol iii. 216.

Footnote 851:

Ibid. f. 240. vol. iii. 220.

Footnote 852:

Ibid. f. 245. vol. iii. 225.

Footnote 853:

Ibid. f. 245, b. vol. iii. 225.

Footnote 854:

Ibid. f. 254. vol. iii. 233.

Footnote 855:

Ibid. f. 254, b. vol. iii. 234.

Footnote 856:

Ibid. f. 254, b. vol. iii. 234.

Footnote 857:

Ellis, Introd. p. 1. The fractions, and the admixture of a decimal
with the quarterly division, seem to imply that the later or Norman
measure was the smaller of the two.

Footnote 858:

Thorpe, i. 434.

-----

It is obvious that all these calculations are ultimately founded upon the value of the acre relatively to our own statute measure, in which the survey of 1841 is expressed. That ager and acra are equivalent terms appears from their being used interchangeably in various entries of Domesday. Nor is there any good reason to suppose that the Normans made any violent change in the values of these several denominations, although they might adopt more convenient subdivisions of the larger sums. They did just the same thing in respect to the Saxon money. Besides, as it was from the Saxons that they derived the information which the Survey contains, it is reasonable to believe that the Saxon values were generally adopted, at least as far as the híd was concerned. The minute subdivision of land consequent upon the Conquest probably rendered it necessary to pay especial attention to the smaller units, and I can conceive nothing more likely than a slight change in the value of the acre, while the híd and virgate remained unaltered. Then where an estate comprised only one Saxon acre, it might readily be considered equal to half a ferling, or 1¼ acre, Norman measure, for it would have been difficult and complicated to express it in other terms. In fact where small fractional parcels of land were to be subtracted, the Commissioners were generally glad to avoid details, and enter “A. has so much in demesne, and the Villani have aliam terram, _the rest of the land_.” If the Saxon ager paid for half a ferling in the time of the Confessor, it was likely to be taken at that value in the Survey; for the law, _quæ de minimis non curat_, could hardly notice so trifling a deviation. The approximate value of the Saxon acre, however, I have given; it was one day’s work for a plough and oxen, in other words very nearly our own statute-acre.

That the value of the hide became gradually indistinct, when reckonings ceased to be made in it, and the calculation was taken upon knights’ fees, is very intelligible. We consequently find surprising variations in the amount of hides counted to a knight’s fee, as well as the acres contained in this last measure. In the time of Edward the Third it was computed that there were 60,215 knight’s fees in England, which taking the present acreage of 31,770,615 gives rather more than 527 acres to a fee: hence those who believed a hide to contain 100 acres, calculated five hides to a knight’s fee, in accordance with the Saxon law which made that amount the minimum of a thane’s estate, and also to the entries in Domesday, from which it appeared that one _miles_ went from five hides: but here it was overlooked that the hide was exclusively _arable_ land. To such erroneous modes of calculation we owe such entries as the following:—

“Decem acrae faciunt fardellum, iv fardelli faciunt virgatum, quatuor virgatae faciunt hydam, quatuor hydae faciunt unum feodum.” MS. Harl. 464. fol. 17, b.

where 1 fardel = 10 acres.
4 fardels = 40 acres = 1 virgate.
16 fardels = 160 acres = 4 virgates = 1 hide.
64 fardels = 640 acres = 16 virgates = 4 hides = 1 knight’s fee.

Again we are told (Regist. Burgi Sci. Petri, fol. 81, b) that

“Quinque feoda fuerunt antiquitus una baronia; et quinque hydae unum feodum; et quinque virgatae terrae una hyda, quaelibet virgata de viginti acris.”

Or tabularly,—

1 virgate = 20 acres.
5 virgates = 100 acres = 1 hide.
25 virgates = 500 acres = 5 hides = 1 knight’s fee.
125 virgates = 2500 acres = 25 hides = 5 fees = 1 barony.

which results neither coincide with the last, nor with those of Domesday, nor with those derived from Saxon authorities.

The hidage of various ancient Gás which has been given in Chapter III. could naturally not be sufficient guide under the new shire divisions. Unfortunately we have not a complete account of the hidage in the shires: nor does what we have coincide with the conclusion arrived at in the course of the fourth chapter.

In the Cotton. MS. Claud. B. vii. (fol. 204, b), which appears to have been written in the time of Henry III., we have the following entries:—

Hydae.
In Wiltescyre continentur 4800
In Bedefordscyre sunt 1200
In Cantebrigescyre sunt 2500
In Huntedunescyre sunt 800½
In Northamptescyre sunt 3200
In Gloucesterscyre sunt 2400
In Wirecesterscyre sunt 1200
In Herefordescyre sunt 1500
In Warewycscyre sunt 1200
In Oxenefordscyre sunt 2400
In Salopescyre sunt 2300
In Cesterscyre sunt 1300
In Staffordescyre sunt 500

The Cotton MS. Vesp. A. xviii. fol. 112, b, written in the reign of Edward I., gives a different list of counties, among which the following variations occur:—

Bedfordshire 1000
Northamptonshire 4200
Gloucestershire 2000
Worcestershire 1500
Shropshire 2400
Cheshire 1200

If we pursue the plan heretofore adopted, we shall have these results:—

┌───────┬────────┬───────┬────────┬────────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┐ │County.│Acreage.│Hidage.│ H. at│ H. at│Excess │Excess │Ratio │Ratio │ │ │ │ │ 30.│ 40.│at 30. │at 40. │at 30. │at 40. │ ├───────┼────────┼───────┼────────┼────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┤ │Wilts. │ 868,060│ 4800│ 144,000│ 192,000│724,060│676,000│1:5 │1:3·5 │ │Bedf. │ 297,632│ 1200│ 36,000│ 48,000│261,632│249,632│1:7 │1:5 │ │Camb. │ 536,313│ 2500│ 75,000│ 100,000│461,313│436,313│1:6 │1:4·5 │ │Hunt. │ 242,250│ 800½│ 24,015│ 32,020│218,235│210,230│1:9 │1:7 │ │Nrhm. │ 646,810│ 3200│ 96,000│ 128,000│550,810│518,810│1:5·77 │1:4 │ │Glouc. │ 790,470│ 2400│ 72,000│ 96,000│718,470│694,470│1:10 │1:7·25 │ │Worc. │ 459,710│ 1200│ 36,000│ 48,000│423,700│411,710│1:11·75│1:8·5 │ │Heref. │ 543,800│ 1500│ 45,000│ 60,000│502,800│483,800│1:11 │1:8 │ │Warw. │ 567,930│ 1200│ 36,000│ 48,000│531,930│519,930│1:14·75│1:10·75│ │Oxf. │ 467,230│ 2400│ 72,000│ 96,000│395,230│371,230│1:5·5 │1:4 │ │Salop. │ 864,360│ 2300│ 69,000│ 92,000│795,360│772,360│1:11·5 │1:8·4 │ │Chesh. │ 649,050│ 1300│ 39,000│ 52,000│610,050│597,050│1:15·62│1:11·5 │ │Staff. │ 736,290│ 500│ 15,000│ 20,000│721,290│716,290│1:48 │1:36·8 │ └───────┴────────┴───────┴────────┴────────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┘

Now either these figures cannot be relied on, or we must carry the hide in this calculation to a very different amount. If we take it at 100 acres, we shall find the whole hidage of these thirteen counties amounts to 25,300 × 100 or 2,530,000 acres, while the whole actual acreage is 7,669,905; giving an excess of 5,139,905, and consequently a ratio of 25:51 nearly, or 1:2. This would a little exceed the present ratio, which is 5:11, a result which appears very improbable indeed in the reign of Henry III. But when we consider the numberless errors of transcription, so unavoidable where merely numbers, and not words, are given, and the totally inconsistent accounts contained in different manuscripts, we can hardly rest satisfied that the figures themselves are trustworthy. Even on the hypothesis that in the time of Henry III. or Edward I. the hide was calculated on the new footing of 100 acres, we yet could not reconcile the conflicting amounts assigned to the counties themselves.