Book 1 — CHAPTER IV. LANDED POSSESSION. THE EÐEL, HÍD OR ALOD.

Possession of a certain amount of land in the district was the indispensable condition of enjoying the privileges and exercising the rights of a freeman^[145]. There is no trace of such a qualification as 89constituted citizenship at Athens or Rome: among our forefathers, the exclusive idea of the city had indeed no sway. They formed voluntary associations upon the land, for mutual benefit; the qualification by birth, as far as it could be of any importance, was inferred from the fact of admission among the community; and gelondan, or those who occupied the same land, were taken to be connected in blood^[146]. An inquiry into the pedigree of a man who presented himself to share in the perils of the conquest or the settlement, would assuredly have appeared superfluous; nor was it more likely to be made, when secure enjoyment came to reward the labours of invasion. In fact the Germanic settlements, whether in their origin isolated or collective, are based throughout upon the idea of common property in land. It is not the city, but the country, that regulates their form of life and social institutions: as Tacitus knew them, they bore in general the character of disliking cities: “It is well enough known,” he says, “that none of the German populations dwell in cities; nay that they will not even suffer continuous building, and house joined to house. They live apart, each by himself, as the woodside, the plain or the fresh spring attracted him”^[147]. Thus the Germanic community is in some sense adstricta glebae, bound to the soil: 90its members are sharers in the arable, the forest and the marsh, the waters and the pastures: their bond of union is a partnership in the advantages to be derived from possession of the land, an individual interest in a common benefit.

The district occupied by a body of new settlers was divided by lot in various proportions^[148]. Yet it is certain that not all the land was so distributed; a quantity sufficient to supply a proper block of arable^[149] to each settler, was set apart for division; while the surplus fitted for cultivation, the marshes and forests less suited to the operations of the plough, and a great amount of fine grass or meadow-land, destined for the maintenance of cattle, remained in undivided possession as commons. At first too, it is clear, from what has been said in the second chapter, that considerable tracts were left purposely out of cultivation to form the marches or defences of the several communities. But those alone whose share in the arable demonstrated them 91to be members of the little state, could hope to participate in the advantages of the commons of pasture: like the old Roman patricians, they derived from their haeredium benefits totally incommensurate with its extent. Without such share of the arable, the man formed no portion of the state; it was his franchise, his political qualification, even as a very few years ago a freehold of inconsiderable amount sufficed to enable an Englishman to vote, or even be voted for, as a member of the legislature,—to be, as the Greeks would call it, in the πολιτεία,—a privilege which the utmost wealth in copyhold estates or chattels could not confer. He that had no land was at first unfree: he could not represent himself and his interests in the courts or assemblies of the freemen, but must remain in the mund or hand of another^[150],—a necessary consequence of a state of society in which there is indeed no property but land, in other words, no market for its produce.

From the mode of distribution it is probable that each share was originally called Hlyt (sors, κλῆρος), it derived however another and more common name from its extent and nature. The ordinary Anglosaxon words are Higid^[151] (in its contracted and almost universal form Híd) and Hiwisc. The Latin equivalents which we find in the chronicles and charters are, familia, cassatus, mansus, mansa, 92mansio, martens and terra tributarii. The words Híd and Hiwisc are similar, if not identical, in meaning: they stand in close etymological relation to Higan, Hiwan, the family, the man and wife, and thus perfectly justify the Latin terms familia and cassatus^[152], by which they are translated. The Híd then, or Hide of land, is the estate of one household, the amount of land sufficient for the support of one family^[153]. It is clear however that this could not be an invariable quantity, if the households were to be subsisted on an equal scale: it must depend upon the original quality and condition of the soil, as well as upon manifold contingencies of situation—climate, aspect, accessibility of water and roads, abundance of natural manures, proximity of marshes and forests, in short an endless catalogue of varying details. If therefore the Hide contained a fixed number of acres all over England, and all the freemen were to be placed in a position of equal prosperity, we must assume that in the less favoured districts one Hide would not suffice for the establishment of one man, but that his allotment must have comprised more than that quantity. The first of these hypotheses may be very easily disposed of: there is not the slightest ground for supposing that any attempt was, or 93could be, made to regulate the amount of individual possession beyond the limit of each community; or that there ever was, or could be, any concert between different communities for such a purpose. The second supposition however presents greater difficulties.

There is no doubt a strong antecedent improbability of the Hide having been alike all over England: isolated as were the various conquests which gradually established the Saxon rule in the several districts, it can hardly be supposed that any agreement was at first found among bands, engaged in continual struggles for safety, rather than for extension of territory. It may indeed be objected that later, when the work of conquest had been consolidated, when, under the rule of powerful chieftains, the resistance of the Britons had ceased to appear dangerous, some steps may have been taken towards a general arrangement; those historians who please themselves with the phantom of a Saxon confederation under one imperial head,—a Bretwaldadóm—may find therein an easy solution of this, and many other difficulties^[154]: but still it seems little likely that the important step of dividing the country should have been postponed, or that a successful body of invaders should have thought it necessary to wait for the consent or co-operation of others, whose ultimate triumph was yet uncertain. 94Experience of human nature would rather incline us to believe that, as each band wrung from the old masters of the soil as much as sufficed for its own support and safety, it hastened to realize its position and marked its acquisition by the stamp and impress of individual possession. It is moreover probable that, had any solemn and general agreement been brought about through the influence of any one predominant chief, we should not have been left without some record of a fact, so beneficial in itself, and so conclusive as to the power and wisdom of its author: this we might not unreasonably expect, even though we admit that such an event could only have taken place at the very commencement of our history, and that such a division, or, what is more difficult still, redivision of the soil, is totally inconsistent with the state of society in England at any period subsequent to A.D. 600: but these are precisely the cases where the mythus replaces and is ancillary to history.

Against all these arguments we have only one fact to adduce, but it is no light one. It is certain that, in all the cases where a calculation can be made at all, we do find a most striking coincidence with respect to the size of the Hide in various parts of England; that such calculation is applicable to very numerous instances, and apparently satisfies the condition of the problem in all; and lastly that there appears no reason to suppose that any such real change had taken place in the value of the Hide, down to the period of the Norman conquest and the 95compilation of Domesday, according to the admeasurement of at least the largest and the most influential of the English tribes^[155]. The latest of these measurements are recorded in Domesday; the earliest by Beda: the same system of calculations, the same results, apply to every case in which trial has been made between these remote limits; and we are thus enabled to ascend to the seventh century, a period at which any equality of possessions is entirely out of the question, but at which the old unit of measurement may still have retained and handed down its original value: even as, with us, one farm may comprise a thousand, another only two or three hundred acres, and yet the extent of the acre remain unaltered.

How then are we to account for this surprising fact, in the face of the arguments thus arrayed against it? I cannot positively assert, but still think it highly probable, that there was some such general measure common to the Germanic tribes upon the continent, and especially in the north. Whether originally sacerdotal, or how settled, it is useless to guess; but there does seem reason to believe 96that a measure not widely different from the result of my own calculations as to the Hide, prevailed in Germany; and hence to conclude that it was the usual basis of measurement among all the tribes that issued from the storehouse of nations^[156].

What was the amount then of the Hide among the Anglosaxons? Perhaps the easiest way of arriving at a trustworthy conclusion will be to commence with the Anglosaxon acre, and other subdivisions of the Hide and the acre itself.

There is reason to believe that the latter measure implied ordinarily a quantity of land not very different in amount from our own statute acre^[157]. I argue this from a passage in the dialogue attributed to Ælfríc, where the ploughman is made to say: “ac geiúcodan oxan and gefæstnodan sceare and cultre mid ðǽre syl ælce dæg ic sceal erian fulne æcer oððe máre;” that is, “having yoked my oxen, and fastened my share and coulter, I am bound to plough every day a full acre or more.” Now experience 97proves^[158] that a plough drawn by oxen will hardly exceed this measure upon average land at the present day; an acre and a quarter would be a very hard day’s work for any ploughman under such circumstances. Hence for all practical purposes we may assume our actual acre not to differ very materially from the Anglosaxon. And now, how is an acre constituted?

It has many divisors, all multiplying into the required sum of 4840 square yards. Thus, it is clear that a length of 4840 yards, with a breadth of one yard, is quite as much an acre as a length of 220 yards with a breadth of 22 (in other words, ten chains by one, or 22 × 10 × 22,) the usual and legal computation: that is to say, twenty-two strips of land each 220 yards long and one wide, if placed together in any position will make up an acre. Placed side by side they will make an oblong acre whose length and breadth are as 10:1. A space rather more than sixty-nine and less than seventy yards in each side would be a square acre; it is however not probable that the land generally allowed of square divisions, but rather that the portions were oblong, a circumstance in favour of the ploughman, whose labour varies very much with the length of the furrow.

The present divisors of the acre are 5·5 and 40; combinations of these numbers make up the parts not only of the acre or square measure, but also 98the measure of length. Thus 5·5 × 40 = 220, which taken in yards are one furlong, and which with one yard’s breadth are ¹⁄₂₂ of an acre. Again, forty times 5·5 yards with a breadth of 5·5 yards (or 220 × 5·5) are 1210 yards square, ·25 of an acre: twice that, or forty times 5·5 with a breadth of eleven yards are ·5 acre: and twice that, or 220 × 20 (that is in modern surveying ten chains by one) = 4840 yards or the whole acre. The same thing may be expressed in another way: we may assume a square of 5·5 yards, which is called a rod, perch, or pole: forty of these make a rood, which is a furlong with a breadth of 5·5 yards; and four such roods, or a furlong with a breadth of twenty-two yards, are an acre of the oblong form described above, and which is still the normal or legal acre.

My hypothesis goes on to assume that such, or nearly such, were the elements of the original calculation: in fact, that they were entirely so, with the substitution only of 5 for 5·5 as a factor. It remains to be asked why these numbers should be fixed upon? Probably from some notion of the mystical properties of the numbers themselves. Forty and eight are of continual recurrence in Anglosaxon tradition, and may be considered as their sacerdotal or mythical numbers: forty divided by eight gives a quotient of five; and these may have been the original factors, especially if, as there is every reason to believe, the first division of lands (whether here or on the continent matters not) took place under the authority and with the assistance of the heathen priesthood.

If this were so, the Saxon acre very probably 99consisted of 5 × 5 × 40 × 4 = 4000 square yards^[159]; in which case the rod would be 25 yards square, and the furlong 200 yards in length. At the same time as the acres must be considered equal for all the purposes of useful calculation, 4000 Saxon square yards = 4840 English, 5 Saxon = 5·5 English, and 200 Saxon = 220 English yards. Further, the Saxon yard = 1·1 English, or 39·6 inches. This I imagine to be the metgyrde or measuring-yard of the Saxon Laws^[160]. If then we take 5 × 5 × 40 yards we have a block of land, 200 Saxon yards in length, and five in breadth; and this I consider to have been the Saxon square Furlang or small acre, and to have been exactly equal to our rood, the quarantena of early calculations^[161]. There is no doubt whatever of the Saxon furlang having been a square as well as long measure^[162]; as its name denotes, it is the 100length of a furrow: now 220 (= 200 Saxon) yards is not at all too long a side for a field in our modern husbandry^[163], and is still more readily conceivable in a less artificial system, where there was altogether less enclosure, and the rotations of crops were fewer. Five yards, or five and a half, is not too much space to allow for the turn of the plough; and it therefore seems not improbable that such an oblong block (200 × 5) should have been assumed as a settled measure or furlong for the ploughman, two being taken alternately, as is done at this day, in working, and forming a good half-day’s work for man and beast: the length of the furrow, by which the labour of the ploughman is greatly reduced, being taken to compensate for the improved character of our implements.

I think it extremely probable that the Saxons had a large and a small acre, as well as a large and small hundred, and a large and small yard: and also that the quarantena or rood was this small acre. Taking forty quarantenae we have a sum of ten large acres, and taking three times that number we have 120 quarantenae, or a large hundred of small acres = 30 large acres, giving ten to each course of a threefold system of husbandry. This on the whole seems a near approximation to the value of the Hide of land; and the calculation of small acres would then help to account for the 101number of 120 which is assigned to the Hide by some authorities^[164].

In the appendix to this chapter I have given various calculations to prove that in Domesday the value of a Hide is forty Norman acres. It has been asserted that 100 Saxon = 120 Norman acres, and if so 40 Norman = 33⅓ Saxon: which does not differ very widely from the calculation given above.

It must be borne in mind that the Hide comprised only arable land: the meadow and pasture was in the common lands and forests, and was attached to the Hide as of common right: under these circumstances if the calculation of thirty, thirty-two or thirty-three acres be correct, we shall see that ample provision was made for the family^[165].

Let us now apply these data to places of which we know the hidage, and compare this with the modern contents in statute-acres.

According to Beda^[166] the Isle of Wight contained 1200 hides or families: now the island contains 86,810 acres, which would give 72⅓ acres per hide. But only 75,000 acres are under cultivation now, and this would reduce our quotient to 62·5 acres. On the hypothesis that in such a spot as the Isle 102of Wight (in great portions of which vegetation is not abundant) our Saxon forefathers had half as much under cultivation as we now have, we should obtain a quotient of about thirty-one acres to the hide, leaving 49,610 acres of pasture, waste, etc.: the ratio between the cultivated and uncultivated land, being about 37:49, is much too near equality for the general ratio of England, but may be accounted for by the peculiar circumstances of the island.

Again, Beda estimates Thanet at 600 hides^[167]. Now Thanet, at this day, contains 23,000 acres of arable land, and 3500 of marsh and pastures. The latter must have been far more extensive in the time of Beda, for in the first place there must have been some land on the side of Surrey and Sussex reserved as Mark, and we know that drainage and natural causes have reclaimed considerable tracts in that part of Kent^[168]; nor is it reasonable to suppose that our forefathers ploughed up as much land as we do. Yet even 23,000 acres will give us only 38⅓ acres to the hide; and I do not think we shall be venturing too much in placing the 3200, 3800 or 5000 acres by which 23,000 respectively exceed 19,800, 19,200 and 18,000, to the account of pastures and commons. Seven or eight thousand acres of common land would bear in fact so unusually small a proportion to the quantity under crop, that we should be disposed to suspect the islanders of having been less wealthy than many 103of their neighbours, unless we give them credit for having sacrificed bread crops to the far more remunerative pasturage of cattle^[169].

The whole acreage of Kent is 972,240 acres. What amount of this must be deducted for waste, rivers, roads and towns I cannot say, but some deduction is necessary. Now Kent numbered 15,000 hides: this gives a quotient of 64 to 65 acres per hide; and at the least, one half of this may fairly be taken off for marsh, pasture and the weald of Andred.

The calculation for Sussex is rendered uncertain in some measure, through our ignorance of the relative proportion borne by the weald in the seventh century or earlier, to its present extent. The whole county is computed at 907,920 acres, and the weald at 425,000 acres. We may be assured that every foot of the weald was forest in the time of Beda: to this must be added 110,000 acres which are still waste and totally unfit for the plough: 30,000 acres now computed to be occupied by roads, buildings, etc. may be neglected: our amount will therefore state itself thus:

Whole acreage 907,920

Weald and waste 535,000

372,920 acres.

104Now Sussex contained 7000 hides^[170], and this will give us a quotient of 53·25 acres per hide. Here again, if we make allowance for the condition of Saxon husbandry, we shall hardly err much in assuming something near thirty to thirty-three acres to have been the arable hide in Sussex.

When once we leave the accurate reports of a historian like Beda for the evidence of later manuscripts, we must necessarily proceed with great caution, and in reasonable distrust of our conclusions. This must be borne in mind and fairly appreciated throughout the following calculations.

An authority already mentioned^[171] computes the number of hides in Eastanglia at 30,000. It is difficult to determine exactly what counties are meant by this, as we do not know the date of the document; but supposing, what is most probable, that Norfolk and Suffolk are intended, we should have a total of 2,241,060 acres in those two great farming districts^[172]. But even this large amount will only give us a quotient of 73·7 acres per hide, and it may fairly be diminished by at least one half, to account for commons, marshes, forests and other land not brought under the plough from the seventh to the tenth centuries.

The same table states Essex at 7000 hides. The acreage of that county is 979,000 acres^[173], hence 105upon the whole calculation we shall have 139⁶⁄₇ acres per hide. But of course here a very great deduction is to be made for Epping, Hainault and other forests, and for marshy and undrained land.

I shall now proceed to reverse the order of proceeding which has hitherto been adopted, and to show that the hypothesis of the hide having comprised from thirty to thirty-three acres is the only one which will answer the conditions found in various grants: that in a number of cases from very different parts of England, a larger number of acres would either be impossible or most improbable: that it is entirely impossible for the hide to have reached 120 or even 100 acres, and that the amount left after deducting the arable, to form pastures and meadows, is by no means extravagant. The examples are taken from different charters printed in the Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici, and for convenience of reference are arranged tabularly. The comparison is made with the known acreage, taken from the Parliamentary return of 1841^[174]. The table is constructed upon the following plan. The first column contains the name of the place; the second, the number of hides; the third, the actual acreage; the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth, the hides calculated at thirty, thirty-two, 106thirty-three, forty and one hundred acres respectively; the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth, the excess of real over supposed acreage, at the first four amounts; the thirteenth, the excess of hidage over real acreage on the hypothesis of one hundred acres 107per hide; the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth, the ratios of hidage at thirty, thirty-two, thirty-three and forty, to the excess, from which we deduce the proportion between the arable, and the meadow, pasture and waste. In a few instances, 108there is a double return, implying that it is uncertain to which, of two synonymous districts, a grant must be referred.

Name No. of Actual

hides. acreage.

Trotterscliff Kent. 12 1150

Dailesford Kent. 6 540

Sunningwell Berks. 15 1200

Denchworth Berks. 30 2800

Graveney Kent. 32 1920

Marcham Berks. 50 4940

{ Kington Kington Wilts. Wilts. 40 40 2320 3950

Petersham Surrey 10 660

Brokenborough Wilts. 50 2950

{ Alresford Alresford Hants. Hants. 40 40 1250 3660

Whitchurch Hants. 110 7330

Beddington Surrey. 70 3830

{ Compton Compton Dorset. Dorset. 40 40 1390 1520

Sanderstead Surrey. 32 2250

{ Clapham Clapham Surrey. Surrey. 30 30 1070 1920

Micheldever Hants. 100 9340

Wrington Somers. 20 1530

Barrow on Humb. Linc. 50 4620

Chertsey Surrey. 200 10020

Sutton Surrey. 30 1830

Aldingbourn Sussex. 38 3800

Ferring Sussex. 12 1070

Denton Sussex. 25 890

Bradfield Berks. 48 4270

Aston Berks. 55 2030

Charing Kent. 60 4060

King’s Worthy Hants. 30 2190

Hurstborne Prior Hants. 60 3070

Newnton Wilts. 10 810

Garford Berks. 15 1170

Mordon Surrey. 20 1700

Blewbury Berks. 100 6950

Sotwell Berks. 15 1310

Goosey Berks. 10 850

{ Hanney, East Hanney, West Berks. Berks. 20 20 600 1390

Badgworth Somers. 25 1470

Drayton Berks. 20 1950

Barton Berks. 40 3590

Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage

at 30. at 32. at 33. at 40. at 100.

Trotterscliff Kent. 360 384 396 480 1200

Dailesford Kent. 180 192 198 240 600

Sunningwell Berks. 450 480 495 600 1500

Denchworth Berks. 900 960 990 1200 3000

Graveney Kent. 960 1024 1056 1280 3200

Marcham Berks. 1500 1600 1650 2000 5000

{ Kington Kington Wilts. Wilts. 1200 1200 1280 1280 1320 1320 1600 1600 4000 4000

Petersham Surrey 300 320 330 400 1000

Brokenborough Wilts. 1500 1600 1650 2000 5000

{ Alresford Hants. 1200 1280 1320 1600 4000

{ Alresford Hants. 1200 1280 1320 1600 4000

{ Alresford Alresford Hants. Hants. 1200 1200 1280 1280 1320 1320 1600 1600 4000 4000

Whitchurch Hants. 3300 3520 3630 4400 11000

Beddington Surrey. 2100 2240 2310 2800 7000

{ Compton Compton Dorset. Dorset. 1200 1200 1280 1280 1320 1320 1600 1600 4000 4000

Sanderstead Surrey. 960 1024 1056 1280 3200

{ Clapham Clapham Surrey. Surrey. 900 900 960 960 990 990 1200 1200 3000 3000

Micheldever Hants. 3000 3200 3300 4000 10000

Wrington Somers. 600 640 660 800 2000

Barrow on Humb. Linc. 1500 1600 1650 2000 5000

Chertsey Surrey. 6000 6400 6600 8000 20000

Sutton Surrey. 900 960 990 1200 3000

Aldingbourn Sussex. 1140 1216 1254 1520 3800

Ferring Sussex. 360 384 396 480 1200

Denton Sussex. 750 800 825 1000 2500

Bradfield Berks. 1440 1536 1584 1920 4800

Aston Berks. 1650 1760 1815 2200 5500

Charing Kent. 1800 1920 1980 2400 6000

King’s Worthy Hants. 900 960 990 1200 3000

Hurstborne Prior Hants. 1800 1920 1980 2400 6000

Newnton Wilts. 300 320 330 400 1000

Garford Berks. 450 480 495 600 1500

Mordon Surrey. 600 640 660 800 2000

Blewbury Berks. 3000 3200 3300 4000 10000

Sotwell Berks. 450 480 495 600 1500

Goosey Berks. 300 320 330 400 1000

{ Hanney, East Hanney, West Berks. Berks. 600 600 640 640 660 660 800 800 2000 2000

Badgworth Somers. 750 800 825 1000 2500

Drayton Berks. 600 640 660 800 2000

Barton Berks. 1200 1280 1320 1600 4000

Name Rat. Rat. Rat. Rat.

at 30. at 32. at 33. at 40.

Trotterscliff Kent. 36:79 38:77 39:75 48:67

Dailesford Kent. 1:2 15:29 10:19 4:5

Sunningwell Berks. 3:5 5:8 30:47 1:1

Denchworth Berks. 9:19 12:23 96:181 3:4

Graveney Kent. 1:1 8:7 11:9 2:1

Marcham Berks. 75:172 80:167 165:329 100:147

{ Kington Kington Wilts. Wilts. 15:14 24:55 65:52 130:267 67:50 134:263 20:9 32:47

Petersham Surrey 5:6 16:17 1:1 20:13

Brokenborough Wilts. 30:29 32:27 33:26 40:19

{ Alresford Alresford Hants. Hants. 24:1 20:41 128:5 64:119 132:5 66:117 0 80:103

Whitchurch Hants. 330:403 352:381 363:370 440:293

Beddington Surrey. 210:173 224:159 231:152 280:103

{ Compton Compton Dorset. Dorset. 120:19 15:4 128:11 16:3 132:7 33:5 0 0

Sanderstead Surrey. 32:43 512:563 528:547 128:97

{ Clapham Clapham Surrey. Surrey. 90:17 45:51 96:11 1:1 99:8 33:31 0 15:9

Micheldever Hants. 150:317 160:307 165:302 200:267

Wrington Somers. 20:31 64:89 66:87 80:73

Barrow on Humb. Linc. 25:52 80:151 55:99 100:131

Chertsey Surrey. 300:201 320:181 330:171 400:101

Sutton Surrey. 30:31 32:29 33:28 120:63

Aldingbourn Sussex. 57:190 304:485 627:913 38:57

Ferring Sussex. 36:71 192:343 198:337 48:59

Denton Sussex. 75:14 80:9 165:13 0

Bradfield Berks. 144:283 768:1367 792:1343 192:235

Aston Berks. 165:38 176:27 366:43 0

Charing Kent. 90:11 96:107 99:104 120:83

King’s Worthy Hants. 30:43 32:41 33:40 40:33

Hurstborne Prior Hants. 180:127 192:115 198:109 240:67

Newnton Wilts. 30:51 32:49 33:48 40:41

Garford Berks. 45:72 48:69 49:67 60:57

Mordon Surrey. 6:11 32:53 33:52 8:9

Blewbury Berks. 60:79 64:75 66:73 80:59

Sotwell Berks. 45:86 48:83 93:163 60:71

Goosey Berks. 6:11 32:53 33:52 8:9

{ Hanney, East Hanney, West Berks. 0 60:79 0 64:75 0 66:73 0 80:59

Badgworth Somers. 75:72 80:67 55:43 100:47

Drayton Berks. 4:9 64:131 22:43 80:115

Barton Berks. 120:239 128:231 132:227 160:99

We have thus forty-nine cases in which the Hide is proved less than 100 acres, a fortiori less than 120. Any one who carefully considers the ratios arrived at in the foregoing table, which for any one of the assumed cases rarely exceed one to two, will agree that there is a remarkable coincidence in the results, in at least the rich, fertile and cultivated counties from which the examples are derived. In some cases indeed the proportion of arable to waste is so great, that we must suppose other districts, now under cultivation, to have been then entirely untouched, in order to conceive sufficient space for marks and pastures. But lest it should be objected that these examples can teach us only what was the case in fertile districts, I subjoin a calculation of the Hidage and Acreage of all England, including all its barren moors, its forests, its marshes and its meadows, from the Solent to the utmost limit of Northumberland.

The total Hidage of England = 243,600

The total Acreage of England = 31,770,615 st. a.

Acreage at 30 7,308,000 Excess 24,462,615 Rat. 7:24 nearly.

32 7,795,200 23,975,415 1:3

33 8,038,800 23,731,815 8:23

40 9,744,000 22,026,615 3:8

100 24,360,000 7,410,615 24:7

120 29,232,000 2,538,615 14:1

This calculation leaves no doubt a bare possibility of the hide’s containing 100 or 120 statute-acres: 109but those who are inclined to believe that, taking all England through, the proportion of cultivated to uncultivated land was as 29:3, or even as 24:7, it must be owned, appreciate our ancient husbandry beyond its merits^[175]. Cultivation may very probably have increased with great rapidity up to the commencement of the ninth century; and in that case, waste land would have been brought under the plough to meet the demands of increasing population: but the savage inroads of the Northmen which filled the next succeeding century must have had a strong tendency in the opposite direction. I can hardly believe that a third of all England was under cultivation at the time of the conquest; yet this is the result which we obtain from a calculation of thirty-two or thirty-three acres to the hide, while a calculation of forty acres gives us a result of three-eighths, or very little less than one-half. The extraordinary character of this result will best appear from the following considerations.

If we proceed to apply these calculations to the existing condition of England, we shall be still more clearly satisfied that from thirty to thirty-three acres is at any rate a near approximation to the truth. 110The exact data for England are I believe not found, but in 1827 Mr. Couling, a civil engineer and surveyor, delivered a series of calculations to the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Emigration, which calculations have been reproduced by Mr. Porter in his work on the Progress of the Nation. From this I copy the following table:

Arable and Meadow, Waste Waste

garden. pasture, marsh. capable of incapable of Summary.

improvement. improvement.

Statute acres. Statute acres. Statute acres. Statute acres. Statute acres.

10,252,800 15,379,200 3,454,000 3,256,400 32,342,400

Now as the arable and gardens are all that can possibly be reckoned to the hide, we have these figures:

Arable 10,252,800

Meadow, waste, forest, etc. 22,089,600

giving a ratio of 5:11 nearly between the cultivated and uncultivated^[176].

The actual amount in France is difficult to ascertain, but of the 52,732,428 hectares of which its superficial extent consists, it is probable that about 30,000,000 are under some sort of profitable culture: giving a ratio of rather less than 15:11 between the cultivated and uncultivated: how much of this is arable and garden I cannot exactly determine; but it is probable that a great deal is reckoned to profitable cultivation, which could not have 111been counted in the hide. Osieries, meadows, orchards, cultivated or artificial grassland, and brushwood, are all sources of profit, and thus are properly included in a cadastre of property which may be tithed or taxed as productive: but they are not strictly what the hide was, and must be deducted in any calculation such as that which is the object of this chapter. We are unfortunately also furnished with inconsistent amounts by different authorities, where the difference rests upon what is reckoned to profitable cultivation, on which subject there may be a great variety of opinion. Still, for a time neglecting these considerations, and making no deduction whatever, it appears that the excess of culture upon the gross sum is only as 15:11 in France^[177].

In the returns from Austria we can follow the 112same train of reasoning: as the ensuing table will show.

Product. surf. in jochs. (joch = 1·4 acre).

Provinces. Arable. Vines. Meadows. Commons. Forests. Total.

Lower Austria 1,399,910 80,153 447,758 251,347 1,122,285 3,301,453

Upper Austria 834,556 27 530,601 517,683 1,141,823 3,024,690

Styria 709,147 54,875 456,960 596,341 1,773,564 3,590,887

Carinthia 477,492 16,814 556,973 763,846 1,528,942 3,344,067

Illyria 245,738 26,132 171,252 520,866 317,246 1,281,234

Tyrol 377,300 55,300 432,930 648,800 1,946,200 3,460,530

Bohemia 3,889,979 4,446 948,468 611,501 2,316,298 7,770,692

Moravia & }

Silesia } 2,213,855 51,793 390,152 463,098 1,114,849 4,233,747

Galicia 5,770,388 30 2,068,032 1,360,166 4,250,932 13,449,548

Dalmatia 161,228 100,530 28,728 568,538 300,874 1,159,898

Total 16,079,593 390,100 6,031,854 6,302,186 15,813,012 44,616,746

Thus of the whole productive surface of the Austrian empire, the arable bears only the proportion of 4:11. But to this must clearly be added an immense extent of land totally unfitted for the plough; by which the ratio of arable to the whole territorial surface will be materially diminished. Strange then as the conclusion may appear, we are compelled to admit that England at the close of the tenth century had advanced to a high pitch of cultivation: while the impossibilityimpossibility of reckoning the hide at much above thirty Saxon acres is demonstrated. It is clear, however the property of the land may have been distributed, that the elements of wealth existed in no common degree^[178].

113The number of forty acres has of course been taken solely for the purpose of getting a common measure with the present acre assumed in the parliamentary survey. Whether it corresponded exactly with thirty, thirty-two or thirty-three Saxon acres, it is impossible to say, but I have shown that the difference could not be very great. Something may be alleged in favour of each of these numbers; but on the whole the larger one of thirty-three acres seems to me the most probable. A valuable entry of the year 967 may help us to some clearer conclusion^[179]. In this document Bishop Oswald states himself to have made a grant of seó þridde hind at Dydinccotan, ðæt is, se þridde æcer,—the third hind at Didcot, that is, the third acre. It is certain that at some very early period the word hund denoted ten, whence we explain its occurrence in such numerals as hundseofontig, hundeahtatig, etc. The word hind then, I derive from this hund, and render by tenth, and the grant seems to have conveyed the third tenth, which can only be said of a quantity containing three times ten units of some description or other. But this third tenth is further described as being every third acre, that is, a third of the whole land; and ten units make up this third: it seems therefore not unreasonable to suppose that the acre was the unit in question, that 114ten such acres constituted the hind, and that the hind itself was the third part of the hide. When we consider that thirty acres are exactly three times an area of 40 × 40 square rods, there appears a probability that the measure was calculated upon a threefold course of cultivation, similar to that in use upon the continent of Europe; this consisted of a rotation of winter corn, summer corn, and fallow, and to each a block or telga of ten large or forty small acres (roods) was allotted. Thirty acres were thus devoted to cultivation; but where was the homestall? Probably not upon the thirty acres themselves, which we cannot suppose to have been generally enclosed and sundered, but to have lain undivided, as far as external marks were concerned, in the general arable of the community. The village containing the homesteads of the markers, probably lay at a little distance from the fields^[180], and I do not think we shall be giving too much when we allow three acres, over and above the thirty, for farm buildings, strawyard and dwelling. For we cannot doubt that stall-feeding was the rule with regard to horned cattle in general. In the same dialogue which has been already cited, the ploughman is made to say: “I must fill the oxen’s cribs 115with hay, and give them water, and bear out their dung^[181].” Moreover there must be room found for stacks of hay and wood, for barns and outhouses, and sleeping-rooms both for the serfs and the members of the family; nor are houses of more than one story very likely to have been built^[182]. With this introduction I proceed to another grant of Oswald^[183]. In the year 996, he gave three hides of land to Eádríc: the property however lay in different places: “æt Eánulfestúne óðerhealf híd, ⁊ æt úferan Strætforda, on ðǽre gesyndredan híde, ðone óðerne æcer, ⁊ æt Fachanleáge ðone þriddan æcer feldlandes ... ⁊ on eásthealfe Afene eahta æceras mǽdwa, ⁊ forne gean Biccenclife. xii. æceras mǽdwa, ⁊ þreo æcras benorðan Afene tó myllnstealle;” i. e. “at Eanulfestun a hide and a half; at upper Stratford the second acre (i. e. half a hide); at Fachanleah the third acre (i. e. a third of a hide); on the east of the river Avon, eight acres of meadow, and onwards towards Biccancliff, twelve acres; and to the northward of the Avon, the three acres for a millstall.” Our data here are 1½ hide + ½ hide + ⅓ hide, or 2⅓ hides; but, if the calculations which precede are correct, 8 + 12 acres or 20 acres = ⅔ hide, and thus make up three hides of thirty acres each: three acres devoted to mill-buildings are not reckoned into the sum, and it is therefore possible that a similar course was pursued with regard 116to the land occupied, not by the millstall but by the homestall^[184].

Having thus stated my own view of the approximate value of the hide, I feel it right to cite one or two passages which seem adverse to it. By a grant of the year 977, Oswald conveyed to Æðelwald, two hides, all but sixty acres; these sixty acres the bishop had taken into his own demesne or inland at Kempsey, as wheat-land^[185]. Now if this be an accurate reading, and not by chance an ill-copied lx for ix, it would seem to imply that sixty acres were less than a hide; for these acres were clearly arable.

Again, Æðelred granted land at Stoke to Léofríc in 982: the estate conveyed was of three hides and thirty acres, called in one charter jugera, in another part of the same grant, æcera^[186]. It may be argued that here the acres were meadow or pasture, not included in the arable. But there are other calculations upon the jugerum^[187], which render it probable that less than our statute-acre was intended by the term. For example, in 839, king Æðelwulf gave 117Dudda ten jugera within the walls of Canterbury: now Canterbury at this day comprises only 3240 acres, and taking the area of almost any provincial town, it seems hardly probable that ten full acres within the walls should have been granted to any person, especially to one who, like Dudda, was of no very great consideration. A town-lot of two acres and a half, or ten roods, is conceivable.

The last example to be quoted is from a will of Ælfgár^[188], a king’s thane, about 958. In this, among other legacies, he grants to Æðelgár a hide of 120 acres: “and ic Æðelgár an án híde lond ðes ðe Æðulf hauede be hundtuelti acren, áteo só he wille.” In this instance I am inclined to think that the special description implies a difference from the usual computation: if a hide were always 120 acres, why should Ælfgár think it necessary to particularize this one hide? was there a large hide of 120, as well as a small one of thirty? In the other cases—looking at the impossibility of assigning more than forty statute-acres to the Saxon hide, so plainly demonstrated by the tables—I suppose the æcras to be small acres or roods.

It is scarcely necessary to say that where the number of hides mentioned in any place falls very far short of the actual acreage, no argument can be derived any way. The utmost it proves is that only a certain amount, however inconsiderable, was under the plough. Thus Beda tells us that Anglesey contained 960, Iona or Icolmkill, only five, 118hides^[189]. The acreage of Anglesey gives 150,000 acres under cultivation: this would be 156·33 per hide; but in this island a very great reduction is necessary: taking it even as it stands, and calculating the hide at thirty acres, we should have a ratio of 24:101; at forty acres, a ratio of 32:93 or little more than 1:3.

Iona numbers about 1300 acres (nearly two square miles): this at five hides would give 260 acres per hide: at thirty acres, a ratio of 3:23 or nearly 1:8 between cultivated and uncultivated land: or at forty acres, a ratio of 2:11. But the monks and their dependants were the only inhabitants; and in the time of Beda, up to which there is no proof of the land’s having been inhabited at all (in fact it was selected expressly because a desert), sand, if not forest, must have occupied a large proportion of the surface.

Let us now retrace our steps for a few moments. The hide was calculated upon the arable: it was the measure of the alod,—the éðel, or inherited, individual possession; it was the κλῆρος, lot, or share of the first settler: it kept a plough at work during the year: and, according to its etymology (higid) and the word familia by which it was translated, it was to suffice for the support of one Hiwisc or household.

Did it really so suffice, at first and afterwards? Unquestionably it did. We may safely assert this, without entering into nice speculations as to the 119amount of population in the Saxon kingdoms of the seventh, eighth, ninth, or even eleventh centuries. We know that in the eighth century, 150 hides were enough for the support and comfort of 600 monks in Yarrow and Wearmouth^[190]; there is no reason, from their history, to suppose that they were at all sparingly provided for. But allowance must be made also for serfs and dependants, the exercise of hospitality and charity, the occasional purchase of books, vestments and decorations, the collection of reliques, and the maintenance of the fabric both of the church and monastery. Grants and presents, offerings and foundations would do much, but still some portion of these necessary expenses must be carried to the account of the general fund. At this rate however, one hide was capable of maintaining four full-grown men.

Now even at the present day an industrious man can very well support his family upon, not thirty or forty, but ten acres of average land^[191]. If we look at the produce of such a threefold course as has been mentioned, there can hardly be any doubt upon the subject; the cultivator would have every year twenty Saxon (= 26⅔ Norman) acres under some kind of corn, principally barley in all probability, though much wheat was grown. Assuming the yield at only two quarters per acre, which is an 120almost ludicrous understatement of the probable amount^[192], we give each householder forty quarters of cereals, at the very lowest, and deducting his seed-corn and the public taxes, we still leave him a very large amount. The average annual consumption of wheat per head in England is now computed at one quarter: let us add one half to compensate for the less nutritious qualities of barley, and we shall yet be under the mark if we allow our householder at the close of the year, a net receipt of thirty quarters, or food for at least twenty persons. Add to this the cattle, and especially swine fed in the forests,—which paid well for their own keep, and gave a net surplus—and the ceorl or owner of one hide of land, independently of his political rights, becomes a person of some consideration from his property^[193]: in short he is fully able to maintain himself, his wife and child, the ox that ploughs, and the slave that tends his land,—owning much more indeed, than, in Hesiod’s eyes, would have sufficed for these purposes^[194]. It may be admitted 121that the skies of Greece and Italy showered kindlier rays upon the Ionian or the Latin than visited the rough denizen of our Thule; that less food of any kind, and especially less meat, was required for their support^[195], and that they felt no necessity to withdraw large amounts of barley from the annual yield, for the purpose of producing fermented liquors^[196]; still, as far as the amount of land is concerned, the advantage is incontestably on the side of the Anglosaxon; and in this one element of wealth, our ceorl was comparatively richer than the comrade of Romulus or the worshipper of Athene.

122