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
constituted 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: its 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.
-----
Footnote 145:
Even till the latest period, personal property was not reckoned in the
distinction of ranks, although land was. No amount of mere chattels,
gold, silver, or goods, could give the Saxon franchise. See the
ordinance Be Wergyldum, § 10. Be Geþincðum, § 2. Thorpe, i. 189, 191.
This is a fundamental principle of Teutonic law: “Ut nullum liberum
sine mortali crimine liceat inservire, nec de haereditate sua
expellere; sed liberi, qui iustis legibus deserviunt, sine impedimento
haereditates suas possideant. Quamvis pauper sit, tamen libertatem
suam non perdat, nec haereditatem suam, nisi ex spontanea voluntate,
se alicui tradere voluerit, hoc potestatem habeat faciendi.” Lex Alam.
Tit. I. cap. 1. Lex Baiovar. Tit. 6. cap. 3. § 1. Eichhorn, i. 328,
note _d_. Loss of land entailed loss of condition in England, long
after the establishment of our present social system. A beautiful
passage to this effect occurs in the play of “A Woman killed with
kindness”: a gentleman refuses to part with his last plot of ground,
on this account:
“Alas, alas! ’tis all trouble hath left me
To cherishe me and my poor sister’s life.
If this were sold, our names should then be quite
Razed from the bedroll of gentility.
You see what hard shift we have made to keep it
Allied still to our own name. This palm, you see,
Labour hath glow’d within; her silver brow,
That never tasted a rough winter’s blast
Without a mask or fan, doth with a grace
Defy cold winter and his storms outface!”
Footnote 146:
In MS. glossaries we find _gelondan_ rendered by _fratrueles_. In
advanced periods only can there be a distinction between the family,
and the local, distributions: Suidas, citing Xanthus, says the Lydians
made a solemn supplication to the gods, παγγενεί τε καὶ πανδημεί. See
Niebuhr on the Patrician Houses, i. 267.
Footnote 147:
Mor. Germ. c. 16.
-----
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 to 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.
-----
Footnote 148:
The traces of this mode of distribution are numerous. Hengest forcibly
occupying the Frisian territory, is said to do so, elne, unhyltme,
violently and without casting of lots. Beów. l. 2187, 2251. The Law of
the Burgundians calls hereditary land, “terra sortis titulo
acquisita,” in contradistinction to chattels taken by purchase. Lex
Burg. Tit. 1. cap. 1, 2. Eichhorn, i. 360, 400, note _a_. Godred,
having subdued the Manxmen, divided their land among his followers by
lot. “Godredus sequenti die obtionem exercitui suo dedit, ut si
mallent Manniam inter se dividere, et in ea habitare; vel cunctam
substantiam terrae accipere, et ad propria remeare.” Chron. Manniae.
(Cott. MS. Jul. A. VII. fol. 32.) Upon the removal of St. Cuðberht’s
relics to Durham, the first care was to eradicate the forest that
covered the land; the next, to distribute the clearing by lot:
“eradicata itaque silva, et unicuique mansionibus sorte distributis,”
etc. Simeon. Hist. Dunelm. Eccl. § 37.
Footnote 149:
Words denoting measures of land have very frequently reference to the
plough: thus geóc, furlang, sulung, aratrum, carucata, etc.
Footnote 150:
προστάτον γεγράφθαι, to be enrolled under some one’s patronage: to be
in his _mund and borh_. ὥστ’ οὐ Κρέοντος προστάτον γεγράψομαι. Œd.
Tyr. 411.
-----
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_, _mansio_,
_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 could 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.
-----
Footnote 151:
Cod. Dipl. No. 240.
Footnote 152:
_Cassatus_ or _casatus_, a married man, Span. _casado_. Othello speaks
of his _unhoused_ free condition, that is, his bachelor state. It is
by marriage that a man founds a house or family.
Footnote 153:
Henry of Huntingdon thus defines its extent: “Hida autem Anglice
vocatur terra unius aratri cultura sufficiens per annum.” lib. vi. an.
1008. But this is a variable amount on land of various qualities, as
every ploughman well knows.
-----
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. Experience 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.
-----
Footnote 154:
It does not seem very clear why the idea of _one_ measure of land
should suggest itself to either many such chieftains or one such
Bretwalda, while other arrangements of a much more striking and
necessary character remained totally different.
-----
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 compilation 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.
-----
Footnote 155:
Beda almost invariably gives his numbers as “iuxta mensuram Anglorum.”
But in his works _Angli_ denotes all the Teutonic inhabitants of
Britain. H. E. i. cap. 1. Again, in Bk. i. cap. 15, he identifies
them, “Anglorum sive Saxonum gens.” He draws no distinction between
Angle and Saxon tribes, except where special reasons lead him to
particularize them. He does note discrepancies between them, which
would have appeared far less important to a scientific and
mathematical thinker, as he was, than differences in land-divisions. I
conclude then that no limitation can be admitted in his assertion, and
that the words “iuxta mensuram Anglorum” denote, “according to the
admeasurement common to all the Germanic inhabitants of Britain.”
-----
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 that 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].
-----
Footnote 156:
I do not know the present average amount of a Frisian or Westphalian
_Hof_, but the peasant-farms a little below Cologne, on the left bank
of the Rhine, average from 30 to 50 acres. See Banfield, Agricult.
Rhine, p. 10. The Bavarian _Hof_ of two _Huben_ contains from 50 to 60
_juckert_ (each _juckert_ equal to 40,000 square Bavarian feet, or
nearly a _jugerum_). This brings the _Hof_ from about 36 to 40 acres.
See Schmeller, Baierisch. Wörterbuch, ii. 142, _voc._ Hueb.
Schmeller’s remarks on _Hof_ are worth consulting, and especially his
opinion that it may mean a _necessary_ measure or portion. See also
Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 535.
-----
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 proves[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?
-----
Footnote 157:
That it was a fixed and not a variable quantity, both as to form and
extent, seems to follow from the expressions, _three acres wide_ (Cod.
Dipl. No. 781), iii acera brǽde, i. e. _three acres breadth_ (Leg.
Æðelst. iv. 5), ix _acræ latitudine_ (Leg. Hen. I. cap. xvi.).
Footnote 158:
These calculations rest not only upon the authority of several large,
practical farmers, and the opinions of intelligent ploughmen who have
been consulted, but also upon experiments made under the author’s own
eye, on land of different qualities.
-----
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 the 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 consisted 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 length 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.
-----
Footnote 159:
I think, for reasons to be assigned below, that there was a small as
well as large acre: in which case the small acre was probably made up
of 5 × 5 × 40 = 1000 sq. y.
Footnote 160:
The yard of land was a very different thing: this was the fourth part
of the Hide, the Virgata of Domesday.
Footnote 161:
This seems clear from a comparison of two passages already quoted in a
note, but which must here be given more at length. The law of Æðelstán
defines the king’s peace as extending from his door to the distance on
every side of three miles, three _furlongs_, three acres’ breadth,
nine feet, nine palms, and nine barleycorns. The law of Henry gives
the measurements thus: “tria miliaria, et tres _quarantenae_, et ix (?
iii) acrae latitudine, et ix pedes et ix palmae, et ix grana ordei.”
Thus the furlang and quarantena are identified. But it is also clear
that the series is a descending one, and consequently that the furlang
or quarantena is longer than the breadth of an acre. If, as is
probable, it is derived from _quarante_, I should suppose three
lengths and three breadths of an acre to have been intended; in fact
that some multiple of forty was the longer side of the acre.
Footnote 162:
In one case we hear of ða beán-furlang, the furlong under
bean-cultivation. Cod. Dipl. No. 1246.
Footnote 163:
A square of 220 yards would form a field of ten acres, which is not at
all oversized. Since the happy downfall of the corn-laws, which were a
bonus upon bad husbandry, hedges are being rooted up in every quarter,
and forty or fifty acres may now be seen in single fields, where they
were not thought of a few years ago.
-----
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 number of 120 which is assigned to the Hide by some
authorities[164].
-----
Footnote 164:
See Ellis, Introd. to Domesday.
-----
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].
Footnote 165:
The numbers given are assumed, upon the supposition that 3 × 40 were
taken: or that 4 × 8, that is four virgates of eight acres; or lastly
that thirty-three Saxon = nearly forty Norman were taken. As I am
about to test the actual acreage of England by these numbers, it is as
well to try them all. The practical result cannot vary much, and the
principal object is to show that the Saxon Hide was not very different
from the ordinary German land-divisions.
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 of 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.
-----
Footnote 166:
Hist. Eccl. iv. 16.
-----
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 of their
neighbours, unless we give them credit for having sacrificed bread crops
to the far more remunerative pasturage of cattle[169].
-----
Footnote 167:
Hist. Eccl. i. 25.
Footnote 168:
The river Wantsum alone was three stadia wide, about a third of a
mile, and was passable at two points only. Bed. Hist. Eccl. i. 25.
Footnote 169:
The great fertility of Thanet is noticed by the ancients. Solinus
(cap. xxii.) calls it “frumentariis campis felix et gleba uberi.” But
corn is of no value without a market; and unless London or the
adjacent parts of the continent supplied one, I must still imagine
that the islanders did not keep so great an amount in arable. It is
true that at very early periods a good deal of corn was habitually
exported from Britain: “annona a Britannis sueta transferri.” Ammian.
Hist. xviii. 2.
-----
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.
Now 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.
-----
Footnote 170:
Beda, Hist. Eccl. iv. 13.
-----
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.
-----
Footnote 171:
See Chap. III. p. 82.
Footnote 172:
Norf. 1,292,300, Suff. 938,760, = 2,241,060. Of these I believe only
about 2,000,000 are actually under cultivation, which would reduce the
quotient to sixty-three acres and two-thirds per hide.
-----
The same table states Essex at 7000 hides. The acreage of that county is
979,000 acres[173], hence upon 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.
-----
Footnote 173:
Of which only 900,000 are computed to be now under cultivation: this
reduces the quotient to 128·5 acres per hide; and the ratio of
cultivated to uncultivated land is as 7:23, taking the hide at 30
acres; and as 77:223 taking the hide at 33 acres.
-----
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, thirty-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 per 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, there is a double return, implying that it is uncertain
to which, of two synonymous districts, a grant must be referred.
-----
Footnote 174:
Enumeration Abstract, etc., 1841. I have also used the tables found in
Mr. Porter’s Progress of the Nation; in these however, the total
acreage, calculated apparently upon the square miles, differs slightly
from the results of the Government inquiry, Mr. Porter’s numbers
always exceeding those of the _Blue-book_.
-----
┌──────────────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────┐
│ 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 │Wilts. │ 40│ 2320│
│{ Kington │Wilts. │ 40│ 3950│
│ Petersham │Surrey │ 10│ 660│
│ Brokenborough │Wilts. │ 50│ 2950│
│{ Alresford │Hants. │ 40│ 1250│
│{ Alresford │Hants. │ 40│ 3660│
│ Whitchurch │Hants. │ 110│ 7330│
│ Beddington │Surrey. │ 70│ 3830│
│{ Compton │Dorset. │ 40│ 1390│
│{ Compton │Dorset. │ 40│ 1520│
│ Sanderstead │Surrey. │ 32│ 2250│
│{ Clapham │Surrey. │ 30│ 1070│
│{ Clapham │Surrey. │ 30│ 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 │Berks. │ 20│ 600│
│{ Hanney, West │Berks. │ 20│ 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 Wilts. │ 1200│ 1280│ 1320│ 1600│ 4000│
│{ Kington Wilts. │ 1200│ 1280│ 1320│ 1600│ 4000│
│ Petersham Surrey │ 300│ 320│ 330│ 400│ 1000│
│ Brokenborough Wilts. │ 1500│ 1600│ 1650│ 2000│ 5000│
│ Whitchurch Hants. │ 3300│ 3520│ 3630│ 4400│ 11000│
│ Beddington Surrey.│ 2100│ 2240│ 2310│ 2800│ 7000│
│{ Compton Dorset.│ 1200│ 1280│ 1320│ 1600│ 4000│
│{ Compton Dorset.│ 1200│ 1280│ 1320│ 1600│ 4000│
│ Sanderstead Surrey.│ 960│ 1024│ 1056│ 1280│ 3200│
│{ Clapham Surrey.│ 900│ 960│ 990│ 1200│ 3000│
│{ Clapham Surrey.│ 900│ 960│ 990│ 1200│ 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 Berks. │ 600│ 640│ 660│ 800│ 2000│
│{ Hanney, West Berks. │ 600│ 640│ 660│ 800│ 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 Wilts. │ 15:14 │ 65:52 │ 67:50 │ 20:9 │
│{ Kington Wilts. │ 24:55 │ 130:267│ 134:263│ 32:47 │
│ Petersham Surrey │ 5:6 │ 16:17 │ 1:1 │ 20:13 │
│ Brokenborough Wilts. │ 30:29 │ 32:27 │ 33:26 │ 40:19 │
│{ Alresford Hants. │ 24:1 │ 128:5 │ 132:5 │ 0 │
│{ Alresford Hants. │ 20:41 │ 64:119│ 66:117│ 80:103│
│ Whitchurch Hants. │ 330:403│ 352:381│ 363:370│ 440:293│
│ Beddington Surrey.│ 210:173│ 224:159│ 231:152│ 280:103│
│{ Compton Dorset.│ 120:19 │ 128:11 │ 132:7 │ 0 │
│{ Compton Dorset.│ 15:4 │ 16:3 │ 33:5 │ 0 │
│ Sanderstead Surrey.│ 32:43 │ 512:563│ 528:547│ 128:97 │
│{ Clapham Surrey.│ 90:17 │ 96:11 │ 99:8 │ 0 │
│{ Clapham Surrey.│ 45:51 │ 1:1 │ 33:31 │ 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 Berks. │ 0 │ 0 │ 0 │ 0 │
│{ Hanney, West Berks. │ 60:79 │ 64:75 │ 66:73 │ 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: but 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.
Footnote 175:
I have taken the acreage as given in the Census of 1841, but there is
another calculation which makes it amount to 32,342,400; in which case
the several values must be corrected as follows. The general result is
not in the least altered by this change in the factors.
Acreage at 30 7,308,000 Excess Rat. 7:25
25,034,400
32 7,795,200 24,547,200 7:24
33 8,038,800 24,303,600 1:3
40 9,744,000 22,598,400 9:22
100 24,360,000 7,982,400 24:7
120 29,232,000 3,110,400 29:3
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. The
_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].
-----
Footnote 176:
This differs from the result obtained at forty acres, only by the
small advance of 7⁄88: or taking Mr. Porter’s tables, of 1⁄22.
-----
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 been 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].
Footnote 177:
The hectare is about 2·5 acres. The calculations have been variously
made. One is as follows:
Total superficies 52,732,428 hect.
Profitably cultured, including gardens, osieries, }
willow plantations, orchards, meadows } 30,000,000 hect.
and cultivated pastures }
Forests and landes 10,000,000 ”
Useless land 7,000,000 ”
—————
47,000,000 ”
Another, and I believe sounder, calculation makes the forests and
landes amount to
Forest 8,623,128 hect.
Landes 8,000,00 ”
—————
16,623,128 ”
Where, probably, portions of the wood and lande are not reckoned to
the land under profitable cultivation. Still this is a very different
thing from being under the _plough_.
In the returns from Austria we can follow the same 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 impossibility 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].
-----
Footnote 178:
It is well known that great quantities of land were thrown out of
cultivation to produce chases and forests. And the constant wars of
the baronial ages must have had the same effect. However singular we
may think it, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that, in _some_
districts of England, the Saxons may have had more land in cultivation
than we ourselves had at the beginning of George the Third’s reign;
Mr. Porter calculates that from 1760 to 1814, no less than 7,076,610
acres have been brought into cultivation under Inclosure Bills. Pr. of
the Nation, 154.
-----
The 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 ten 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 with 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 to the land occupied, not by the millstall but by the
homestall[184].
-----
Footnote 179:
Cod. Dipl. No. 538.
Footnote 180:
“In the greater part (of Germany), especially in all the populous
parts of Southern Germany, the land is tilled by its owners, scarcely
any small holdings being farmed out. The possessions of the peasant
owners and cultivators are usually very diminutive, and those of the
richer lords of the soil, especially in the North, immensely
extensive. Lastly, the peasant scarcely anywhere lives upon his land,
but in the adjacent village, whatever may be its distance from his
fields.” Banfield, Agric. on the Rhine, p. 10.
Footnote 181:
Leo, Sprachproben, p. 7. Thorpe, Analect. p. 8.
Footnote 182:
In Hungary, where land is abundant, houses, even those of considerable
proprietors, are rarely of more than one story.
Footnote 183:
Cod. Dipl. No. 529.
Footnote 184:
It is to be remarked that the eight and twelve acres of meadow are
distinguished here from the feld-land or arable: and in strictness
they ought not to be calculated into the hide; but perhaps it was
intended to plough them up: or Oswald may even have begun to follow a
system in which arable and meadow should both be included in the hide,
which is equivalent, in other words, to the attempt to replace the
wasteful method of unenclosed pastures by a more civilized arrangement
of the land. He speaks indeed, on more than one occasion, of granting
gedál-land, and land tó gedále, which can hardly mean anything but
_new enclosures_.
-----
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.
-----
Footnote 185:
Cod. Dipl. No. 612.
-----
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 Dudda 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.
-----
Footnote 186:
Ibid. No. 633.
Footnote 187:
According to Pliny, the jugerum was a day’s work for a yoke of oxen,
i.e. nearly an acre; but the Saxon jugerum can hardly have been so
large, for the reasons given in the text.
-----
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.
-----
Footnote 188:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1222.
-----
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, hides[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.
-----
Footnote 189:
Hist. Eccl. ii. 9; iii. 4.
-----
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 amount 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.
-----
Footnote 190:
Anon. Abb. Gyrw. § 33. This at forty actual acres, is ten acres per
man.
-----
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
almost 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 that 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.
-----
Footnote 191:
We need not enter upon the question whether such a plot of land can be
well cultivated (except as a garden), or whether it is desirable that
there should be such a class of cultivators. All I assert is, that a
man can support his family upon it.
Footnote 192:
The fertility of England was always celebrated, and under the Romans
it exported cereals largely. See Gibbon’s calculation of an export
under Julian. Dec. F. cap. xix. Our present average yield of wheat
exceeds 30 bushels or 3·75 qrs.
Footnote 193:
If he had a market for his surplus, he might accumulate wealth. Even
if he had not this, he insured a comfortable, though rude subsistence,
for his household. The spur to exertion, urging him to acquire
luxuries, might be wanting, and the national advancement in refinement
thus retarded: but he had a sufficiency of the necessaries of life,
and an independent existence in the body of the family and the Mark.
Such a state necessarily precedes the more cultivated stages of
society.
Footnote 194:
οἶκον μὲν πρώτιστα, γυναῖκα τε, βοῦν τ’ ἀροτῆρα.
Cited in Aristot. Polit. bk. i. cap. 1.
The land of a fullborn Spartan may have been somewhat less than the
Saxon hide: but let those who think these amounts too small, remember
the two jugera (under two acres) which formed the _haeredium_ of a
Roman patrician.
Footnote 195:
Hecataeus says the Arcadians fed upon barley-bread and pork, Ἀρκαδικὸν
δὲ δεῖπνον.... Ἑκαταῖος ... μάζας φησὶν εἶναι καὶ ὕεια κρέα. Athen.
iv. 148. But the Arcadians, both in blood and manners, probably
resembled the Saxons more than any other Greeks did; and what
Hecataeus says of them would not apply to the inhabitants of Attica.
Footnote 196:
After the Persian wars at least, when the Greeks prided themselves on
drinking wine, not beer:
ἀλλ’ ἄρσενας τοι τῆσδε γῆς οἰκήτορας
εὑρήσετ’, οὐ πίνοντας ἐκ κριθῶν μέθυ.
Æsch. Supp. 929.
-----