§ 2. Domesday Statistics. (continued 2)

Beneficial hidation.

But then again, we have the phenomenon which has aptly been called ‘beneficial hidation.’ Without being entirely freed from the tax, a manor has been rated at a smaller number of hides than it really contains. ‘There are 5 hides’ says a Gloucestershire entry, ‘3 of them geld, but by grant of the Kings Edward and William 2 of them do not geld[1483].’ ‘There are 8 hides there’ says another entry ‘and the ninth hide belongs to the church of S^t. Edward; King Æthelred gave it quit [of geld][1484].’ ‘There are 20 hides; of these 4 were quit of geld in the time of King Cnut[1485].’ ‘The Bishop [of Winchester] holds Fernham [Fareham] in demesne; it always belonged to the bishopric; in King Edward’s day it defended itself for 20 hides, and it does so still; there are by tale 30 hides, but King Edward gave them thus [i.e. granted that they should be 20 hides] by reason of the vikings, for it [Fareham] is by the sea[1486].’ ‘Harold held it of King Edward; before Harold had it, it defended itself for 27 hides, afterwards for 16 hides because Harold so pleased. The men of the hundred never heard or saw any writ from the king which put it at that figure[1487].’ We have chosen these examples because they give us more information than we can often obtain; they take us back to the days of Cnut and of Æthelred; they tell us of the depredations of the vikings; they show us a magnate fixing the rateable value of his estate ad libitum suum. But our record is replete with other instances in which we are told that by special royal favour an estate has been lightly taxed[1488]. What is more, there are many other instances in which we can hardly doubt that this same cause has been at work, though we are not expressly told of it. When in a district which as a whole is over-rated, or but moderately under-rated, we come upon a few manors which are extravagantly under-rated, then we may fairly draw the inference that there has been ‘beneficial hidation.’

Effect of privilege.

Certainly this will account for much, and we have reason to believe that this disturbing force had been in operation for a long time past and on a grand scale. There is an undated writ of Æthelred[1489], which ordains that an immense estate of the church of Winchester having Chilcombe for its centre and containing 100 hides shall defend itself for one hide. In Domesday Book Chilcombe does defend itself for one hide though it has land for 88 teams[1490]. But further, Æthelred is decreeing nothing new; his ancestors, his ‘elders,’ have ‘set and freed’ all this land as one hide ‘be the same more or less.’ Behind this writ stand older charters which are not of good repute. Still we can see nothing improbable in the supposition that Æthelred issued the writ ascribed to him and that what he said in it was substantially true. Before his day there may have been no impost that was known as a ‘geld’; but there may have been, as we have endeavoured to show, other imposts to which land contributed at the rate of so much per hide. We suspect that ‘beneficial hidation’ had a long history before Domesday Book was made.

Divergence of hide from teamland.

But it will not account for all the facts that are before us; indeed it will serve for few of them. Privilege can account for exceptional cases; it will not account for steady and consistent under-rating; still less will it account for steady and consistent over-rating. We must look elsewhere, and for a moment we may find some relief in the reflection that by the operation of natural and obvious causes an old rate-book will become antiquated. There will be more ‘teamlands’ than there are gelding hides because new land has been brought under cultivation; on the other hand, land will sometimes go out of cultivation and then there will be more gelding hides than there are teamlands. Now that there is truth here we do not doubt. As we have already said[1491], the stability of agrarian affairs in these early times may easily be overestimated. But we can not in this direction find the explanation of changes that take place suddenly at the boundaries of counties.

Partition of the geld.

A master hand has lately turned our thoughts to the right quarter. There can we think be no doubt that, as Mr Round has argued, the geld was imposed according to a method which we have called the method of subpartitioned provincial quotas[1492]. A sum cast upon a hundred has been divided among that hundred’s vills; a sum cast upon a vill has been divided among the lands that the vill contains. It is in substance the method which still governs our land-tax, and in this very year our attention has been pointedly called to its inequitable results. But, whereas in later centuries men distributed pounds, shillings and pence among the counties, our remoter ancestors distributed hides or carucates or acres. The effect was the same; and it is not unlikely that they could pass with rapidity from acres to pence, because the pound had 240 pence in it and the fiscal hide had 120 acres. So the complaint urged this year that Lancashire is under-taxed and Hertfordshire over-taxed[1493] would have been in their mouths the complaint that too many hides had been cast on the one county and too few on the other.

Distribution of hides.

We will not repeat Mr Round’s convincing arguments. Just to recall their character, we will notice the beautiful hundred of Armingford in Cambridgeshire[1494]. In Edward’s day it had 100 hides divided among fourteen vills, six of which had 10 hides apiece, while eight had 5 hides apiece. Before 1085 the number of hides in the hundred had been reduced from 100 to 80; the number of hides in each of the ‘ten-hide vills’ had been reduced to 8; and each ‘five-hide vill’ had got rid of one of its hides. Obviously such results as these are not obtained by a method which begins by investigating the content of each landholder’s tenement. The hides in the vill are imposed from above, not built up from below[1495].

The Worcestershire hidage.

We have no wish to traverse ground which must by this time be familiar to all students of Domesday. But, having in our eye certain ancient statements about the hidage of England, we will endeavour to carry the argument one step further. In Worcestershire we have strong evidence of a neat arrangement of a whole county. In the first place, we are told that ‘in this county there are twelve hundreds, whereof seven, so the shire says, are so free that the sheriff has nothing in them, and therefore, so he says, he is a great loser by his farm[1496].’ Then we are told that the church of Worcester has a hundred called Oswaldslaw in which lie 300 hides. Then we remember that notorious charter (Altitonantis) which tells how this triple hundred of Oswaldslaw was made up of three old hundreds, called Cuthbertslaw, Wulfhereslaw and Wimborntree[1497]. Then, turning to the particulars, we find that exactly 300 hides are ascribed to the various estates which S^t. Mary of Worcester holds in this triple hundred. Those particulars are the following:—

The Worcester estate.

Chemesege Wiche Fledebirie Breodun Rippel Blochelei Tredinctun 24 15 40 35 25 38 23 200 Norwiche Overberie Segesbarue Scepwestun Herferthun Grimanleh Halhegan Cropetorn 6 4 2 3 3 7 25 25 50 100

We have here preserved the order in which Domesday Book names the estates, but have added some brackets which may serve to emphasize the artificiality of the system. Then, looking back once more at our Altitonantis, we see Edgar adding lands to the 50 hides at Cropthorn, so that ‘a perfect hundred’ may be compiled, and the lands that he adds seem to be just those which in our table are bracketed with the Cropthorn estate.

The Westminster estate.

Thus we have disposed of three out of those twelve ‘hundreds’ of which Worcestershire is composed and also of 300 hides of land. Next we perceive that the church of Westminster is said to hold 200 hides. Reckoning up the particulars, we find, not indeed 200, but 199.

H. V. H. V.

Persore 2 Pidelet 5

Wiche 6 Newentune 10

Pendesham 2 Garstune 1.3

Berlingeham 3.1 Pidelet 4

Bricstelmestune10 Peritune 6

Depeforde 10 Garstune 7

Aichintune 16 Piplintune 4.2

Beford 10 Piplintune 6.2

Longedune 30 Cumbrintune 9

Poiwic 3 Cumbrintune 10

Snodesbyrie 11 Broctune 3

Husentre 6 Stoche 15

Wich 1 Cumbrintune 2

Dormestun 5 199.0

The Pershore estate.

Then the church of Pershore has just 100 hides; they are distributed thus:—

Persore 26

Beolege 21

Sture 20

Bradeweia30

Lege 3

100

It is easy to divide these manors into two groups, each of which has 50 hides. The county also tells us that the church of Pershore ought to have the church-scot from ‘the whole 300 hides,’ that is, as well from the 200 allotted to Westminster as from the 100 which Pershore holds[1498].

The Evesham estate.

Then Evesham Abbey has, we are told, 65 hides in the hundred of Fissesberge. ‘In that hundred,’ it is added, ‘lie 20 hides of Dodingtree and 15 hides in Worcester make up the hundred.’ The 65 hides which Evesham holds are allotted thus:—

Evesham Lenchewic Nortune Offenham Liteltune Bratfortune Aldintone 3.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 25

Wiqwene Bratfortune Badesei Liteltune Huniburne Ambreslege 3.0 6.0 6.2 7.0 2.2 15.0 25

65.0

The residue of Worcestershire.

We have dealt heretofore with 665 hides. Let us now reckon up all the hides in Worcestershire that we have not yet counted. The task is not perfectly straightforward, for we have to meet a few difficult questions. In order that our account may be checked by others, we will set forth its details. We will go through the survey noting all the hides which we have not already reckoned.

Worcester city 15.0 More 1.0Glese1.0

Bremesgrave 30.0 Betune3.2Merlie0.1

[1499]Suchelei5.0More0.1Wich1.0

Grastone 3.2 Edboldelege2.2Escelie4.0

Cochesei 2.2 Eslei6.0Nordfeld6.0

Willingewic 2.3 Eslei1.0Franchelie1.0

Celdvic 3.0 Ridmerlege1.2Welingewiche0.3

Chideminstre 20.0 Celdeslai1.0Escelie1.0

Terdeberie 9.0 Estham3.0Werwelie0.2

Clent 9.0 Ælmeleia11.0Cercehalle2.0

Wich 0.2 Wich10.0Bellem3.0

Clive 10.2 Sudtune1.0Hageleia5.2

Fepsetanatum 6.0 Mamele0.2Dudelei1.0

Crohlea 5.0 Broc0.2Suineforde3.0

Hambyrie 14.0 Colingvic1.0Pevemore3.0

Stoche 10.0 Mortune4.0Cradeleie1.0

Huerteberie 20.0 Stotune3.0Belintones5.0

Ulwardelei 5.0 Stanford2.2Witone2.0

Alvievecherche13.0Scelves1.0 Celvestune1.0

Ardolvestone15.0 Chintune5.0 Cochehi2.2

Boclintun8.0 Beretune2.0 Osmerlie1.0

Cuer2.0 Tamedeberie3.0 Costone3.0

Inteberga15.2 Wich0.2 Beneslei1.0

Wich1.0 Clistune3.0 Udecote1.2

Salewarpe1.0 Chure3.0 Russococ5.0

Tametdeberie0.2 Stanford1.2 Stanes6.0

Wich0.2 Caldeslei1.0 Lundredele2.0

Matma5.0 Cuer1.0 Hatete1.0

[1500]Mortune5.0 Hamme1.0 Hamtune4.0

Achelenz4.2Sapie3.0Hortune2.0

Buintun1.0Carletune1.1Cochesie2.0

Circelenz4.0Edevent1.0Brotune2.0

Actune6.0Wicelbold11.0Urso’s hide1.0

Lenche4.0Elmerige8.0Uptune3.0

Wich1.0Croelai5.0Witune0.2

Ludeleia2.0Dodeham1.0 Hantune4.0

Hala10.0Redmerleie1.2 Tichenapletreu3.0

Salewarpe5.0Hanlege1.2 Cedeslai25.0

Wermeslai2.0Hanlege3.0 Hilhamatone0.1

Linde2.0Alretune1.2 Fecheham10.0

Halac1.0Hadesoro2.0 Holewei3.0

Dunclent3.0Holim1.0 [1501]Mertelai 13.0

Alvintune2.0Stilledune0.2 539.0

We have here therefore 539 hides to be added to the 665 of which we rendered an account above. We thus bring out a grand total of 1204 hides. Perhaps the true total should be exactly 1200; but at any rate it stands close to that beautiful figure. And now we remember how we were told that there were ‘twelve hundreds’ in Worcestershire from seven of which the sheriff got nothing. Of these twelve the church of Worcester had three in its ‘hundred’ of Oswaldslaw, the church of Westminster two, the church of Pershore one, and the church of Evesham one. But the Evesham or Fissesberge hundred was not perfect; it required ‘making up’ by means of 15 hides in the city of Worcester and 20 in the hundred of Dodingtree. Thus five hundreds remain to be accounted for, and in its rubrics Domesday Book names just five, namely, Came, Clent, Cresselaw, Dodingtree and Esch. We can not allot to each of these its constituent hides, for we never can rely on Domesday Book giving all the ‘hundredal rubrics’ that it ought to give, and the Worcestershire hundreds were subjected to rearrangement before the day of maps had dawned[1502]. An intimate knowledge of the county might achieve the reconstruction of the old hundreds. But, as it is, we seem to see enough. We seem to see pretty plainly that Worcestershire has been divided into twelve districts known as hundreds each of which has contained 100 hides. It is an anomaly to be specially noted that one of the jurisdictional hundreds, one which has been granted to the church of Evesham, has only 65 hides and can only be made up into a ‘hundred’ for financial purposes by adding to it 20 hides lying in another jurisdictional hundred and the 15 hides at which the city of Worcester is rated.

The County Hidage.

The moment has now come when we may tender in evidence an ancient document which professes to state the hidage of certain districts. There are three such documents which should not be confused. We propose to call them respectively (1) The Tribal Hidage, (2) The Burghal Hidage, and (3) The County Hidage; and this is their order of date. For the two oldest we are not yet ready. The youngest professes to give us a statement about the hidage of thirteen counties. We have it both in Latin and in Old English. It has come down to us in divers manuscripts, which do not agree very perfectly. We will here give its upshot, placing in a last column the figures at which we have arrived when counting the hides in Domesday.

The County Hidage.

Cotton, Claudius, B. vii. f.204 b; Kemble, Saxons i. 493 Cotton, Vespasian, A. xviii. f. 112 b; Kemble, Saxons i. 494 Gale, Scriptores xv. p. 748 Croyland MS. MS. Jes. Coll. Ox.; Morris, Old English Miscellany, p. 145 Domesday Book (boroughs omitted)

Wiltshire48004800480048004050

Bedfordshire12001000120012001193

Cambridgeshire25002500200525001233

Huntingdonshire 850[1503] 850[1503] 800¹⁄₂850747

Northamptonshire32004200320032001356

Gloucestershire24002000240034002388

Worcestershire12001500120012001189

Herefordshire15001500100512001324

Warwickshire12001200120012001338

Oxfordshire24002400240024002412

Shropshire23002400240024001245

Cheshire1300120012001200 512

Staffordshire 500 500—— 500 505

Date of the document.

Dr Liebermann has said that the text whence these figures are derived was probably compiled in English and in the eleventh century[1504]. If we put faith in it, we shall be inclined to set its date at some distance before that of Domesday Book. But our first question should be whether it merits credence; whether it was written by some one who knew what he was about or whether it is wild guesswork. Now when we see that the scrupulous Eyton brought out the hides of Staffordshire at 499, or rather at 499 H 2¹³⁄₃₀ V, and that this document makes them 500, we shall begin to take it very seriously, without relying on our own 505, the result of hasty addition. We have also seen enough to say that 1200 for Worcestershire is very near the mark. As regards other counties, we set so little reliance upon our own computation, that we are not very willing to institute a comparison; but we have given Bedfordshire 1193 hides[1505] and this document gives it 1200; we have given Oxfordshire 2412 and this document gives it 2400; we have given Gloucestershire 2388[1506] and two versions of this document give it 2400. Having seen so much agreement, we must note some cases of violent discord. For Wiltshire 4800 seems decidedly too high, though we have brought the number of its hides above 4000. The figure given to Cambridgeshire is almost twice that which Domesday would justify, and the figures given to Cheshire, Shropshire and Northamptonshire are absurdly large when compared with the numbers recorded in 1086. These cases are enough to show that, though no doubt some or all of the transcribers of The County Hidage must be charged with blunders, the divergence of the copies from Domesday can not be safely laid to this account. About certain counties there is just that agreement which we might expect, when we remember how precarious our own figures are. About certain other counties there is utter disagreement. We infer therefore that the original document did not truly state the hidage as it stood in 1086; but may it not have represented an older state of things.

The Northampton Geld Roll.

Let us take one case of flagrant aberration. Three copies tell us that Northamptonshire has 3200 hides; one that it has 4200. The balance of authority inclines therefore to 3200. Domesday will not give us half that number. But let us turn to the Northamptonshire Geld Roll[1507], the date of which Mr Round places between the Conquest and 1075[1508]. It gives the county 2663¹⁄₂ hides. So here we have a case in which between 1075 and 1086 a county was relieved of about half of its hides[1509]. Also at 2664 we are within a moderate distance of 3200. But the Geld Roll does more than this. It represents Northamptonshire as composed of 28 districts; 22 of these are called ‘hundreds’; two are ‘two-hundreds’; four are ‘other-half hundreds,’ or, as we might say, ‘hundred-and-a-halfs.’ We work a sum:—

(22+4+6) × 100 = 3200.

The result will increase our respect for The County Hidage. Now, when the Geld Roll was made, some of the ‘hundreds’ of Northamptonshire contained their 100 hides apiece, but others were charged with a smaller number, which generally was round, such as 80, 60, 40 hides; and this arrangement is set before us as that which existed ‘in the days of Edward the king.’ If therefore we put faith in The County Hidage and its 3200 hides, we must hold that it speaks to us from the earlier part of the Confessor’s reign or from some yet older time.

Value of The County Hidage.

Is it too good, too neat to be true? Before we pass a condemnatory judgment we must recall the case of Worcestershire, its twelve ‘hundreds’ and 1200 hides. Also we must recall the case of the Armingford hundred in Cambridgeshire, where we have seen how in William’s reign an abatement of 20 per cent, was equitably apportioned among the fourteen villages, and the 100 hides were reduced to 80[1510]. Moreover, if in Domesday Book we pass from Northamptonshire to the neighbouring county of Leicester, we see a startling contrast. The former is decidedly ‘under-rated’; the latter is ‘over-rated.’ Leicestershire has about 2500 carucates, while Northamptonshire has hardly more than half that number of hides. The explanation is that Northamptonshire has obtained, while Leicestershire is going to obtain a reduction. The Pipe Rolls of the twelfth century show us that either under Rufus or under Henry I. this sadly over-taxed county was set down for exactly 1000 carucates.

Reductions of hidage.

As to the other cases in which there is a strident discord between Domesday and The County Hidage, the case of Chester, where the contrast is between some 500 hides and a round 1200 will not perhaps detain us long, for we may imagine, if we please, that the Chestershire of Cnut’s day was much larger than the territory described under that name in 1086[1511]. The 2500 hides attributed to Cambridgeshire and the 2400 attributed to Shropshire may shock us, for, if they are correctly stated, they point to reductions of 50 per cent. or thereabouts. But we have seen some and are going to see some other large abatements.

The county quotas.

On the whole, we believe that this County Hidage, though it has come to us in transcripts some or all of which are careless, is an old and trustworthy document, that it is right in attributing to the counties neat sums of hides, such as 1200 and 2400, and that it is right in representing the current of change that was flowing in the eleventh century as setting towards a rapid reduction in the number of hides. Only in one case, that of Warwickshire, have we any cause to believe that it gives fewer hides to a county than are given by Domesday; here the defect is not very large, and, besides the possibility of mistranscription, we must also remember the possibility of changed boundaries[1512].

The hundred and the hundred hides.

There is one other feature of this document that we ought to notice. Let us compare the number of hides which it gives to a county with the number of ‘hundreds’ which that county contains according to Domesday Book. The latter number we will place in brackets[1513].

Bedfordshire 1200 hides [12 hundreds]: Northamptonshire 3200 [28 hundreds which, however, have been reckoned to be 32[1514]]: Worcestershire 1200 [12]: Warwickshire 1200 [12]: Cheshire 1200 [12]: Staffordshire 500 [5]: Wiltshire 4800 [40]: Cambridgeshire 2500 [17]: Huntingdonshire 850 [4]: Gloucestershire 2400 [39[1515]]: Herefordshire 1500 [19]: Oxfordshire 2400 [uncertain, but at least 19]: Shropshire 2400 [13].

In six out of thirteen cases we seem to see a connexion of the simplest kind between the hides and the hundreds. Now in the eyes of some this trait may be discreditable to The County Hidage, for they will infer that its author was possessed by a theory and deduced the hides from the hundreds. But, after all that we have seen[1516] of symmetrical districts and reductions of hidage, we ought not to take fright at this point. Other people besides the writer of this list may have been possessed by a theory which connected hides with hundreds, and they may have been people who were able to give effect to their theories by decreeing how many hides a district must be deemed to contain. Is it not even possible that we have here, albeit in faded characters, one of their decrees? But the history of the hundreds can not be discussed in a parenthesis. Some further corroboration this County Hidage will receive when hereafter we set it beside The Burghal Hidage, and we may then be able to carry Worcester’s 1200 and Oxford’s 2400 hides far back into the tenth century.

Comparison of Domesday hidage with Pipe Rolls.

Meanwhile, making use of our terms ‘equally rated’ (A = B), ‘over-rated’ (A > B), and ‘under-rated’ (A < B), let us briefly survey the counties as they stand in Domesday. Some help towards an estimation of their hidage is given to us by those few Pipe Rolls of the twelfth century which contain accounts of a danegeld. But we must not at once condemn as false the results of our own arithmetic merely because they do not square with the figures on these rolls. One instance will be enough to prove this. The Henries have to be content with £166 or thereabouts from Yorkshire, or, in other words, to treat it as having 1660 ‘carucates for geld.’ We give it a little more than 10,000 and shall not admit that we have given it 8000 too many. This poor, wasted giant has been relieved and has been set below little Surrey. So again, though Leicestershire will account to Henry I. and his grandson for but £100, it most certainly had more than 1000 and more than 2000 carucates when William’s commissioners visited it. On the other hand, there seem to be cases in a small group of counties in which his sons were able to recover a certain amount of geld which had been, rightfully or wrongfully, withheld or forborne during his own reign. But, taking the counties in mass, we hope that our figures are sufficiently consonant with those upon the Pipe Rolls. Absolutely consonant they ought not to be, for we have endeavoured to include the hides that are privileged from gelding, and in some shires (Hereford, for example) their number is by no means small. Also some leakage in an old tax may always be suspected, and the Pipe Rolls themselves show some unexplained variations in the amount for which a sheriff accounts, and some arithmetical errors[1517].

But now we will make our tour and write brief notes as we go.

Under-rated and over-rated counties.

Kent is scandalously under-rated. Of this there can be no doubt, though, since in many cases blanks are left where the number of the teamlands should stand, the figures can not be fully given. There has in a few instances been a reduction in the number of geldable sulungs since the Conquest, but this does not very greatly affect the result. The under-rating seems to be generally distributed throughout the county. It had not been redressed in Henry I.’s day. Indeed on the Pipe Rolls Kent appears as paying but £105, while Sussex pays twice as much. Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire appear to have all been over-rated. In the Conqueror’s day, however, they shuffled off large numbers of their geldant hides and were paying for considerably fewer hides than they had teamlands. Some part of this reduction was perhaps unauthorized. At any rate the sums that appear on the Pipe Rolls seem to show that in Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire more hides were gelding under Henry I. than had been recently gelding when the survey was made; but the recovery was not sufficient to restore the state of things that existed under the Confessor. Wiltshire, so far as we can see, has always been a sorely over-rated county. It obtains no reduction under William. In the Pipe Rolls it stands at the very head of the counties. Dorset, taken as a whole, is exceedingly fairly rated. Eyton seems to have made 2321 hides and 2332 teamlands; but if the royal demesne (much of which is unhidated) be left out on both sides of the account, there will be slight over-rating. Somerset is very much under-rated, even if no notice be taken of the royal demesne. Devon is grossly under-rated. Cornwall is enormously under-rated. To all appearance considerably more than 1000 teamlands have stood as 400 hides, and even this light assessment seems to be the work of the Conqueror, for in the Confessor’s day the whole county seems to have paid for hardly more than 150 hides[1518]. Middlesex is decidedly over-rated; but Hertford, Buckingham, Oxford, Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford are under-rated. The ratio borne by hides to teamlands varies from county to county. We believe that it becomes small in Gloucester and Worcester and falls much below 1:2 in Hereford[1519]. This ratio is very small again in Warwick, Stafford, Shropshire and Cheshire. The two sister counties of Northampton and Leicester have, as already said, been very differently treated. Northampton is escaping easily, while Leicester, if we are not much mistaken, is over-rated[1520]. Then however the Pipe Rolls show that before the end of Henry I.’s reign Leicester has succeeded in largely reducing its geldability. We have seen reason to believe that a similar reduction had been made in Northamptonshire shortly before the compilation of Domesday Book. Derby is under-rated; Nottingham is much under-rated. Lincoln, though under-rated, is an instance of a county in which we long doubt whether the under-rating of some will not be compensated by the over-rating of other estates. So far as we can tell, Yorkshire had been heavily over-rated; but then, the teamland of Yorkshire is very often a merely potential teamland, and we can not be certain that the jurors will give to the waste vills as many teamlands as they had before the devastation. In the end a very small sum of geld is exacted.

Hidage and value.

We have seen enough in the case of Northampton to make us hesitate before we decide that the arrangement of hides set forth by Domesday Book is in all cases very ancient. That book shows us two different assessments of Cornwall; it shows us Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire relieving themselves or obtaining relief in the Conqueror’s time; it shows us some Cambridgeshire hundreds disburdened of their hides. But of the great reduction in Northamptonshire we should have learnt nothing from its pages. Therefore in other cases we must be cautious, even in the scandalous case of Kent, for we can not tell that there has not been a large reduction of its sulungs in quite recent years. However, behind all the caprice and presumable jobbery, we can not help fancying that we see a certain equitable principle. We have talked of under-rating and over-rating as if we held that every teamland in the kingdom should pay a like amount. But such equality would certainly not be equity. The average teamland of Kent is worth full thirty shillings a year; the average teamland of Cornwall is barely worth five; to put an equal tax on the two would be an extreme of injustice. Now we have formed no very high estimate of the justice or the statesmanship of the English witan, and what we are going to say is wrung from us by figures which have dissipated some preconceived ideas; but they hardly allow us to doubt that the number of hides cast upon a county had been affected not only by the amount, but also by the value of its teamlands. If, starting at the east of Sussex, we journey through the southern counties, we see that over-rating prevails in Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire, and Dorset. We see also that the valet of the average teamland stands rather above than below one pound. We pursue our journey. The ratio that A bears to B begins to decline rapidly and at the same time the valets descend by leaps and bounds. When we have reached Devon we are in a land which could not with any show of justice be taxed at the same rate per acre as that which Wiltshire might bear without complaint. Every test that we can apply shows the extreme poverty of the country that once was ‘West Wales.’ That poverty continues through the middle ages. We look, for example, at the contributions to the tax of 1341 and compare them with the acreage of the contributing counties. Equal sums are paid by 1020 acres in Wiltshire, 1310 in Dorset, 1740 in Somerset, 3215 in Devon, 3550 in Cornwall[1521]. We look at the subsidy of 1294[1522], and, in order that Devon and Cornwall may not be put at a disadvantage by moor and sea-shore, we take as our dividend the number of acres in a county that are now-a-days under cultivation[1523], and for our divisor the number of pence that the county pays. The quotients are, for Wiltshire 2·7, for Dorset 2·8, for Somerset 2·5, for Devon 6·4, for Cornwall 5·2. Retaining the same dividend, we try as a divisor the ‘polls’ for which a county will answer in 1377[1524]. Cornwall here makes a better show; but Devonshire still displays its misery. The quotients are, for Wiltshire 16, for Dorset 14, for Somerset 15, for Devon 27, for Cornwall 17. These figures we have introduced because they support the inferences that we should draw from the valets and valuits of Domesday Book, a study of which has convinced us that the distribution of fiscal hides has not been altogether independent of the varying value of land.

Connexion between hidage and value.

But in order that we may not trust to vague impressions, let us set down in one column the number of hides (carucates or sulungs) that we have given to twenty counties and in another column the annual value of those counties in the time of King Edward as calculated by Mr Pearson[1525].

Hides, Carucates, Sulungs Value in Pounds Hides, Carucates, Sulungs Value in Pounds

Kent 1224 3954 Oxford 2412 2789

Sussex 3474 3467 Gloucester 2388 2855

Surrey 1830 1417 Worcester 1189 1060

Berkshire 2473 2378 Huntingdon 747 900

Dorset 2277 2564 Bedford 1193 1475

Devon 1119 2912 Northampton 1356 1407

Cornwall 399 729 Leicester 2500 491

Middlesex 868 911 Warwick 1338 954

Hertford 1050 1894 Derby 679 631

Buckingham 2074 1785 Essex 2650 4079

33240 38652

One pound one hide.

No one can look along these lines of figures without fancying that some force, conscious or unconscious, has made for ‘One pound, one hide.’ But we will use another test, which is in some respects fairer, if in others it is rude. The total of the valets or valuits of a county sometimes includes and sometimes excludes the profit that the king derives from boroughs and from county courts; also the rents of his demesne manors are sometimes stated in disputable terms. Therefore from every county we will take eighty simple entries, some from the lands of the churches, some from the fiefs of the barons, and in a large county we will select our cases from many different pages. In each case we set down the number of gelding hides (carucates, sulungs) and the valuit given for the T. R. E.[1526]. Our method will not be delicate enough to detect slight differences; it will only suffice to display any general tendency that is at work throughout England and to stamp as exceptional any shires which widely depart from the common rule, if common rule there be. Using this method we find the values of the hide (carucate, sulung) to have been as follows, our figures standing for pounds and decimal fractions of a pound. We begin with the lowest and end with the highest valuit.

Leicester 0·26, York 0·34, Surrey 0·68, Northampton 0·75, Wiltshire 0·77, Sussex 0·81, Chester 0·82, Warwick 0·84, Somerset 0·85, Buckingham 0·86, Oxford 0·87, Dorset 0·88, Berkshire 0·89, Hereford 0·91, Gloucester 0·99, Lincoln 0·99, Derby 1·00, Huntingdon 1·02, Shropshire 1·02, Bedford 1·09, Hampshire 1·10, Worcester 1·10, Middlesex 1·15, Essex 1·41, Devon 1·52, Hertford 1·69, Cambridge 1·73, Nottingham 1·76, Kent 3·25, Cornwall 3·92.

Equivalence of pound and hide.

Now ‘One pound, one hide’ seems to be the central point of this series, the point of rest through which the pendulum swings. Our experiment has been much too partial to tell us whether a shire is slightly over-taxed or slightly undertaxed; but, unless we have shamefully blundered, it tells us that in some twenty out of thirty counties the aberration from the equivalence of pound and hide will not exceed twenty five per cent.: in other words, the value of the normal hide will not be less than 15 nor more than 25 shillings. Also we have brought our counties into an admirable disorder. We have snapped all bonds of race and of neighbourhood. For example, we see the under-taxed Hampshire in the midst of over-taxed counties; we have divorced Nottingham from Derby and Leicester from Northampton. The one general remark that we can make about the geographical distribution of taxation is that, if East Anglia is under-taxed (and this is likely), then Kent, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Hertford would form a continuous block of territory that is escaping easily.

Cases of under-taxation.

The markedly exceptional cases are the most interesting. First let us look at the worst instances of immunity. Kent. In Kent we seem to see ‘beneficial hidation’ on a gigantic scale; but on the whole, though the evidence is not conclusive, we do not think that this is due to any modern privilege. We can not doubt that for a long time past the Kentish churches have been magnificently endowed, and yet the number of manses and sulungs that their land-books bestow upon them is not very large, and the number attributed to any one place is usually small, perceptibly smaller than the number of hides that will be comprised in a West Saxon charter. If a royal land-book condescends to mention acres (iugera, segetes)[1527] it will almost certainly be a Kentish charter, and we may guess that its acres are already fiscal acres of wide extent. To say more would be perilous. The title-deeds of Christ Church can not be readily harmonized with Domesday Book[1528]; perhaps we ought to add that this is much to their credit; but the documents which come to us from S^t. Augustin’s and Rochester suggest that the arrangement of sulungs which exists in the eleventh century is ancient, or, at any rate, that the monks knew of no older computation which dealt out these units with a far more lavish hand[1529]. In Kent the churches were powerful and therefore may have been able to preserve a scheme of assessment which unduly favoured a rich and prosperous shire; but we can not be certain that the hide and the Kentish sulung have really had the same starting-point, nor even perhaps that Kent was settled village-wise by its Germanic invaders[1530].

West Wales.

Devon and Cornwall ought to be ‘under-rated’ (A < B) for they are very poor. What we find is that they are so much under-rated that the hide is worth a good deal more than a pound. Here again we are inclined to think that this under-rating is old, perhaps as old as the subjection of West Wales. Such land-books as we obtain from this distressful country point in that direction, for they give but few hides and condescend to speak of virgates[1531]. Among them is a charter professing to come from Æthelstan which bestows ‘one manse’ upon the church of S^t. Buryan; but clearly this one manse is a wide tract. Also this would-be charter speaks to us of land that is measured by the arpent, and, whether or no it was forged by French clerks after the Norman Conquest, it may tell us that this old Celtic measure has been continuously used in the Celtic west[1532]. Be that as it may, when we are speculating about the under-taxation of Devon and Cornwall, we may remember that where the agrarian outlines were drawn by Welsh folk, the hide, though it might be imposed from above as a piece of fiscal machinery, would be an intruder among the Celtic trevs and out of harmony with its environment. The light taxation of Cambridgeshire is perhaps more wonderful, for our figures represent the hidage of the Confessor’s time, and we have seen[1533] how some of the hundreds in this prosperous shire (our champion wheat-grower) obtained a large abatement from the Conqueror[1534]. If, in accordance with The County Hidage, we doubled the number of Cambridgeshire’s hides, though it would be over-taxed, it would not be so heavily taxed as are some other counties.

Cases of over-taxation.

Extreme over-taxation is far more interesting to us at the present moment than extreme under-taxation. The latter may be the result of privilege, and in the middle ages privileges will be accorded for value received in this world or promised in another. But what are we to say of Leicester? On the face of our record it seems to have been in Edward’s day the very poorest of all the counties and yet to have borne a crushing number of carucates. Under William it was beginning to prosper but still was miserably poor[1535]. We have bethought ourselves of various devices for explaining this difficult case—of saying, for instance, that the Leicestershire ‘carucate of land’ is not a carucate for geld[1536]. But this case does not stand quite alone. The Yorkshire carucates, and they are expressly called ‘carucates for geld,’ had been worth little. It is likely that the figure that we have given for Yorkshire is not very near the true average for that wide territory; but we examined an unusually large number of entries and avoided any which showed signs of devastation in the present or the past. Also we see that in Northamptonshire, if we take the Edwardian valuit and the number of hides existing in 1086, we have an over-taxed county; and yet we have reason to believe that since 1075 it had been relieved of about half its hides. Had this not been done, it would have stood along with Yorkshire, and, if it once had those 3200 of which The County Hidage speaks, it would have stood along with its sister, the wretched Leicestershire. We might find relief in the supposition that the Leicestershire of Edward’s time had been scourged by war or pestilence; but unfortunately the jurors often tell us how many teams were then upon the manors, and in so doing give a marvellously small value to the land that one team tilled. Such reports as the following are common[1537].

Carucates Teams T. R. E. Teams T. R. W. Valuit sol. Valet sol.

Werditone453120

Castone910740140

Wortone66540100

Tuicros667 340

Gopeshille333130

Scepa233230

What can these figures mean? They can not mean that a tract of land was being habitually tilled by three teams and yet was producing in the form of profit or rent no more than the worth of one or two shillings a year. An organized attempt to deceive King William into an abatement seems out of the question, for he is being told of a rapid increase of prosperity. Our best, though an unwarranted, guess is that the Leicestershire valuit speaks not of the Confessor’s day, but of some time of disorder that followed the Conquest, for in truth it seems to give us but ‘prairie values.’ However, if we take, not the valuit, but the valet, we still have carucates that are worth much less than a pound, and it seems clear that the carucate had been worth much less than a pound in the as yet unravaged Yorkshire. On the whole, these cases, together with what we can learn of Lancashire, will dispose us to receive with more favour than we might otherwise have shown certain statements about the hidage of England that have yet to be adduced. In Yorkshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire we may perhaps see the unreformed relics of an age when the distribution of fiscal units among the various provinces of England was the sport of wild guesswork[1538].

Equity and hidage.

We have spoken of a tendency on the part of the hide to be worth a pound. Now we have no wish to represent this equitable element as all powerful or very powerful; the case of Kent is sufficient to show that it may be overruled by favouritism or privilege. There has been a ‘beneficial hidation’ of shires as there has been a ‘beneficial hidation’ of manors. Still that the kings and witan have considered the value as well as the number of teamlands seems fairly plain. Probably they have considered it in a rough, ‘typical’ fashion. Any one who peruses Domesday Book paying attention to the valets will be struck in the first place by their roundness. If a teamland is not worth 20, it is worth 10 or 30, 5 or 40 shillings. The jurors seem to keep in their minds as types the ‘one-pound-teamland,’ the ‘half-pound-teamland’ and so forth. But then, whereas in one county ‘twenty shillings’ will stand for ‘fair average’ and in another for ‘rather poor,’ in a third it will indicate unusual excellence. Similarly we imagine that when fiscal hides have been distributed or redistributed, there has been talk of typical qualities of land, of first-rate and fourth-rate land. Any tradition of Roman taxation which had perdured in Britain or crossed the sea from Frankland would have taught men that this was the right method of procedure. But it is by no means certain that we can carry back this equitable principle very far[1539]. Long ago the prevailing idea may have been that teamland, house-land, pound-land and fiscal hide were, or ought normally to be, all one; and then the discovery that there are wide tracts in which the worth of an average teamland is much less or somewhat greater than a pound may have come in as a disturbing and differentiating force and awakened debates in the council of the nation. We may, if we like such excursions, fancy the conservatives arguing for the good old rule ‘One teamland, one hide,’ while a party of financial reformers has raised the cry ‘One pound, one hide.’ Then ‘pressure was brought to bear in influential quarters,’ and in favour of their own districts the witan in the moots jobbed and jerrymandered and rolled the friendly log, for all the world as if they had been mere modern politicians.

Distribution of hides and of teamlands.

But, to be serious, it is in some conjecture such as this that we may perchance find aid when we are endeavouring to loosen one of Domesday’s worst knots. We have hinted before now[1540] that there are districts in which the teamland (B) seems to be as artificial and as remote from real agrarian life as is the hide or the gelding carucate (A). To any one who thinks that when we touch Domesday’s teamland we have always freed ourselves from the geld system and penetrated through the rateable to the real, the following piece of the survey of Rutland may be commended. ‘In Martinesleie Wapentake there is a hundred in which there are 12 carucates for geld and there can be 48 teams.’ Now there is nothing curious in the fact that 48 ‘real’ teamlands are rated at 12 carucates. But let us look closer. Beside one smaller estate there are in this wapentake three manors. Their arrangement is this[1541]:—

Carucates for geld Teamlands Villeins and bordiers Desmesne teams Men’s teams

Ocheham 416157 237

Hameldune 416153 540

Redlinctune 416196[1542] 430

Subtenancy 24 4 5

1248530127

Now surely the three sixteens are just as artificial as the three fours, and in what possible sense can we affirm that there is land for only 48 teams when we see that 530 tenants are actually ploughing it with 127 teams? Behind this there must be some theory or some tradition that we have not yet fathomed[1543].

Area and value as elements of geldability.

We strongly suspect that in the work of distributing and reducing the geld, ‘the land for one team’ has been playing a part for some time past. In order to decide, for example, whether a claim for abatement was just, the statesman had to consider two elements, the number of the teamlands and their value. He would be content with round figures, indeed no others would content him or be amenable to his rude manipulation. So it is decided that some province or district has, or must be deemed to have, y teamlands. Also it is decided at this or at some other time, or perhaps from time to time, that the land in this district (regard being had to its state of cultivation) is or must be deemed to be first-class, or, as the case may be, third-class land. Then a combination of these propositions induces the conclusion that the district has x hides or carucates for geld. Then inside the district, when the process of subpartitionment begins, a similar method is pursued. There are x hides or carucates for geld to be distributed. They ought to be distributed with reference to the number and value of real teamlands. The work is rudely done in the subpartitionary fashion. A certain sub-district has x/a hides thrown upon it; a sub-sub-district has x/ab; but this apportionment is obtained by combining a proposition about value with a partitionment of the y teamlands. The sub-sub-district has x/ab hides, because y/cd teamlands fall to its share and because its land is assigned to a certain class. Then, perhaps for the purpose of future rearrangements, the number of teamlands (y/cd) is remembered as well the number of hides or gelding carucates (x/ab). The result is that every manor in a certain district has four hides and sixteen teamlands. It is very pretty; it was never (except for technical purposes) very true, and every year makes it less true[1544].

The equitable teamland.

That exactly this was done, we do not say and do not think; but something like it may have been done. As already remarked, we gravely doubt whether that question which the commissioners put about potential teams was understood in the same way in different counties, but we are sadly afraid that some of the answers that they obtained were references, not to existing agrarian facts, but to a fiscal history which already lay in the past and is now hopelessly obscure. A mystery of iniquity is bad, but the mysteries of archaic equity are worse. In many Anglo-Saxon arrangements we find a curious mixture of clumsiness and elaboration.

Artificial valets.

We can not quit this part of our subject without adding that there are cases in which the valuits and valets look as artificial and systematic as the hides and the teamlands. On a single page we find a description of five handsome Yorkshire manors[1545]. We wish to know their value in the past and the present, and what we learn is this: Brostewic valuit £56, valet £10; Chilnesse valuit £56, valet £10; Witfornes valuit £56, valet £6; Mapletone valuit £56, valet £6; Hornesse valuit £56, valet £6; and yet between these manors there are large variations in the number of the carucates and the number of the teamlands. Then we look about and see that it has been common for the first-class manor of Yorkshire, if it is the centre of an extensive soke, to be worth precisely £56[1546]. We can not but fear that the value of these manors is a legal fiction, though a fiction that is founded upon fact. Their supposed worth seems fixed at a figure that will fit into some scheme, the clue to which we have not yet recovered. Everywhere we are baffled by the make-believe of ancient finance.

The new assessments of Henry II.

The obscure forces which conspired to determine the quotas of the various counties might be illustrated by an episode in the reign of Henry II. The old danegeld is still being occasionally levied, and in the main the old assessment prevails. But alongside of this we see a newer tax. From time to time the king takes a gift (donum, assisa, gersuma) from the counties. A certain round number of marks is demanded from every shire. For this purpose a new tariff is employed, and yet it is not wholly independent of the old, for we can hardly look at it without seeing that it is so constructed as to redress in a rude fashion the antiquated scheme of the danegeld. In the first column of the following table we give, omitting fractions, the pounds that the counties contribute when a danegeld is levied, in the second and third the half-marks (6s. 8d.) that they pay by way of gift on two different occasions early in the reign of Henry of Anjou[1547].

Danegeld Donum of 2 Hen. II. Donum of 4 Hen. II.

£ half-marks half-marks

Kent 106 320 240

Sussex 217 202 160

Surrey 180 160 160

Hampshire 185 200

Berkshire 206 148 120

Wiltshire 390 200 160

Dorset 248

Somerset 278 200 300

Devon 104 368 300

Cornwall 23

Middlesex 86 175 80

Hertford 110 120

Buckingham Bedford 205 111 200240

Oxford 250 140 200

Gloucester 194 218 260

Worcester 101 100 120

Hereford 94 80 140

Cambridge 115 160

Huntingdon 71 100

Northampton 120 240 280

Leicester 100 100 160

Warwick 129 100 240

Stafford 45 80 100

Shropshire 118 80 140

Derby Nottingham 112 160 280

York 165 1000[1548]1000

Lincoln 266 540 600

Essex 236 400 400

Norfolk Suffolk 330 235 400 240 400

The variable tariff of dona hits most heavily just those counties which have been too favourably treated; Kent and Devon must make large ‘gifts’ because they pay little geld. Yorkshire, which once more is becoming prosperous, heads the new list, though it pays less geld than Surrey; and, on the other hand, Wiltshire, which makes the largest of all contributions to the ancient tax, is leniently treated. When men have acquired a vested right in an iniquitous assessment, the fertile politician neither reforms nor abolishes the old, but invents a new impost.

Acreage of the fiscal hide.

And now, after all these inconclusive meanderings, we will state our cheerful belief that the hide of Domesday (A) is always[1549] composed of 120 acres and that the carucate for geld of Domesday (A) is always composed of 120 acres. We are speaking only of a fiscal system. Let us forget for a time that the terms that we are using can be employed to describe masses of land. Let us treat them as red and white counters. In the game played at the Exchequer the red counter called a hide is the equivalent of 120 white counters called acres.

Equation between hide and acres.

If Domesday Book is to serve its primary purpose, if it is to tell the king’s officers how much geld is due, it is absolutely necessary that by some ready process they should be able to work sums in hides and acres and in carucates and acres. They must understand such statements as the following:—‘it defends itself for 2 hides and 5 acres[1550]’: ‘it gelded for 3 hides, 1 virgate and 1¹⁄₂ acres[1551]’: ‘he has 5 bovates, 13 acres and 1 virgate for geld[1552].’ Now it is conceivable that the treasury contains a book of tables which will teach the clerks that a hide has a acres in Surrey and b acres in Devon; but this seems highly improbable. As we have already said[1553], the variations between the numbers of ‘real’ acres that go to make ‘real’ hides are not provincial, they are villar variations. That the financiers at Winchester should consider villar variations is out of the question. Therefore if we can prove that in one district they employed a given equation, there is a strong presumption that they used it in other districts. And unfortunately our proof has to be of this kind, for in many counties acres are rarely mentioned and we get no sums that are worked in acres and hides. But further, if we see one equation holding good in a considerable number of cases, we shall still believe that this is the one true equation, though other cases occur in which it breaks down. We have to remember the possibility of mistranscription, the possibility of bad arithmetic, the possibility of a haughty treatment of small numbers: the actual existence of all these dangers can be amply proved. Therefore if once we have inductively obtained an equation which serves in many instances, we shall hold by it, unless the instances in which it fails point either to some one other equation or to the conclusion that the equation varies from parish to parish.

Evidence from Cambridgeshire.

Now the Cambridgeshire Inquest professes to give us the total hidage of a vill and then proceeds to allot the hides among the various tenants in chief. Sometimes when it does this it speaks of virgates and acres and thus gives us an opportunity of seeing how many acres are reckoned to the hide or to the virgate. The equation 1 H. = 4 V. is implied in many entries. But further, there are at least ten cases which assume one or both of the following equations: namely, 1 H. = 120 A. and 1 V. = 30 A. On the other hand, there are some cases in which the sum that is put before us is not rightly worked if these equations be correct; but in some of these cases the Inquisitio and Domesday Book contradict each other and in some a small quantity is neglected. The very few remaining cases point to no one rival equation, and are not too numerous to be ascribed to carelessness[1554].

Evidence from the Isle of Ely.

A similar test can be applied to a part of Cambridgeshire that is not included in the Cambridgeshire Inquest but is included in the Inquisitio Eliensis. We speak of the Isle of Ely. There are entries which, having told us how many hides a manor contained, proceed to allot these among their various occupants, and, as in some of these cases a calculation by acres is mixed up with a calculation by hides, they hold out a hope that we may be able to discover how many acres were reckoned to the hide. We will begin with Ely itself. ‘Ely defends itself for 10 hides.... In demesne there are 5 hides ... and there are 40 villeins with 15 acres apiece ... and 18 cottiers and 20 serfs[1555].’ Now if from the total of 10 hides we subtract the 5 that are in demesne, this leaves 5 others, and if we divide these 5 among the 40 villeins this gives to each villein 1/8th of a hide; but we are told that each villein has 15 acres; therefore it follows that 120 acres make a hide. We reckon that in eight other cases[1556] the same method of computation is followed, though in one of these a hide divided among 17 villeins is said to give them 7 acres apiece and this shows us how a single acre may be neglected in order to avoid a very ugly fraction[1557]. Against these cases must be set seven which give less pleasing results[1558]. In at least one of these no possible theory will justify the arithmetic of our record as it stands[1559], and there is no accord between the remaining five.

Evidence from Middlesex.

At first sight the survey of Middlesex seems to offer materials similar to those that come to us from Cambridgeshire. Very curious and instructive they are. A Middlesex entry will usually give us the number of hides (A), the number of teamlands (B), the number of teams (C), and also certain particulars which state the quantity of land that there is in demesne and the quantities held by divers classes of tenants. The sum of these particulars we may call P. Now we begin by hoping that P will be equal to A, and, since the particulars often contain acres as well as hides and virgates, we hope also to discover the equation that is involved in the sum. As an example we will take a case in which all goes well. At Cowley a manor defends itself for two hides; in demesne are one and a half hides; two villeins have a half hide. Here A = 2 H. and P = 1¹⁄₂ H. + ¹⁄₂ H.; so all is as it should be. But we soon come upon cases in which, though we make no assumption about the relation of the acre to the hide, our P refuses to be equal to our A. Then perhaps we begin to hope that P will be equal to B: in other words, that the sum of the quantities ascribed to lord and tenants will be equal to the number of teamlands. But this is more fallacious than the former hope. We will put a few specimens in a table[1560].

HidesTeamlandsSum of particulars

Harrow (Abp. Canterbury)100 70 46¹⁄₂ H. + 13 V. + 13 A.

Stepney (Bp. London) 32 25 18¹⁄₂ H. + 48¹⁄₂ V.

Fulham (Bp. London) 40 40 41¹⁄₂ H. + 30 V.

Westminster (Abbot) 13¹⁄₂11 10 H. + 14¹⁄₂ V. + 5 A.

Sunbury (Abb. Westminster) 7 6 4 H. + 10¹⁄₂ V.

Shepperton (Abb. Westminster) 8 7 3¹⁄₂ H. + 17 V. + 24 A.

Feltham (C. Mortain)12 10 6 H. + 16¹⁄₂ V.

Chelsea (Edw. of Salisbury) 2 5 1 H. + 4 V. + 5 A.

Meaning of the Middlesex entries.

We seem to have here three independent statements, and, though throughout the county P shows a tendency to keep near to A, still we must not make calculations which suppose that the ‘hide’ of A is the ‘hide’ of P. Take Chelsea for example. We must not say: 2 H. = 1 H. + 4 V. + 5 A., and therefore four virgates and five acres make a hide. No, it seems possible that in these Middlesex ‘particulars’ we do at last touch real agrarian arrangements. At Fulham the bishop has 13 hides in demesne; 5 villeins have 1 hide apiece; 13 villeins have 1 virgate apiece; 34 have a half-virgate apiece; 22 cottiers have in all a half-hide; Frenchmen and London burgesses have 23 hides; so there are 41¹⁄₂ hides and 30 virgates. That we take to be the real arrangement of the manor, though we are far from saying that all its hides are equal. But it gelds for only 40 hides. A virgate can not be a negative quantity. Therefore we need say no more of these Middlesex entries, only in passing let us observe that the discrepancy between P and B is often considerable, and this seems to show that the teamland of these Middlesex jurors is not in very close touch with the agrarian and proprietary allotments.

Evidence in the Geld Inquests.

To yet one other quarter we have hopefully turned only to be disappointed, namely, to the so-called Geld Inquests, copies of which are placed at the beginning of the Exeter Domesday. They tell us of a geld that obviously is being levied at the rate of six shillings on the hide, and sometimes they seem to tell us expressly or implicitly the amount that an acre pays. For a moment we may think that we are obtaining valuable results. Thus at Domerham we find that 14 hides minus 4 acres pay £4. 3s. 8d. We conclude that each acre is taxed at one penny and that 72 A. = 1 H.[1561]. Then at Celeberge 20 H. minus 4 A. is taxed at £5. 19s. 6d. We conclude that each acre is taxed at three-half-pence and that 48 A. = 1 H.[1562]. But we soon come to sums which are absurd and discover that as regards small quantities these documents are for our present purpose quite useless. For the Wiltshire hundreds we have three different documents. They do not agree in their arithmetic. Probably they represent the efforts of three different computers. Indubitably one or more of them made blunders. To give one example:—one of our documents begins its account of Mere by saying that it contains 85 hides, ¹⁄₂ a hide and ¹⁄₂ a virgate; the other two documents say 86 hides, ¹⁄₂ a hide and 1 virgate[1563]. This is by no means the only instance of such discrepant results. But mere clerical or arithmetical errors are not the only obstacle to our use of these accounts. It soon becomes quite evident that small amounts are dealt with in an irregular fashion. Thrice over we are assured that 15 H. ¹⁄₂ V. paid the king £4. 11s. 0d.[1564]; but they should have paid £4. 10s. 9d., if four virgates make a hide. Thrice over we are assured that 64¹⁄₂ H. paid £19. 6s. 10d.[1565]. All suppositions as to acres and virgates apart, 64¹⁄₂ H. should have paid £19. 7s. 0d In Somersetshire the calculations do not speak of acres, but they introduce us to the fertinus or farthing, which is certainly meant to be the quarter of a virgate. Numerous entries show us that 4 fertini = 1 virgate, and yet when a mass of land expressed in terms of hides, virgates and farthings is said to pay a certain sum for geld, we find that the odd farthings are reckoned as paying, sometimes 3d., sometimes 4d., sometimes 4²⁄₃d., sometimes 5d., sometimes 6d. per farthing[1566]. So again, when additions are made, odd acres are ignored. We are told that in a certain hundred the barons have 20 hides in demesne, and then that this amount is made up by the following particulars, 8 H. + 1 V. + 3 H. + 3 V + 4¹⁄₂ H. - 4 A. + 3¹⁄₂ H. It is obvious that these particulars when added together do not make 20 hides, though they may well make 20 hides and 4 acres[1567]. A study of these Geld Inquests has brought us reluctantly to the conclusion that, though they amply prove that 4 V. = 1 H., they afford no proof as to the number of acres that are reckoned to the virgate[1568].

Treatment of small quantities.

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 2³⁄₄ 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

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 15¹⁄₂ 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 ‘x¹⁄₂ 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 S^t. Martin [i.e. the land which belongs to the communitas of the canons of S^t. 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 400¹⁄₂ or more probably 450 acres, which are rated at 2¹⁄₂ 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 5¹⁄₂ 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 91¹⁄₄ while the sum of the teamlands is 91³⁄₄. 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 35¹⁄₂; the total valet of the whole fifteen estates was £7. 1s., 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 2b. 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 = 4B. 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.

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.