Part 54

In Worcestershire we have strong evidence of a neat arrangement of a whole county. In the first place, we are told that 'in this county there are twelve hundreds, whereof seven, so the shire says, are so free that the sheriff has nothing in them, and therefore, so he says, he is a great loser by his farm[1496].' Then we are told that the church of Worcester has a hundred called Oswaldslaw in which lie 300 hides. Then we remember that notorious charter (_Altitonantis_) which tells how this triple hundred of Oswaldslaw was made up of three old hundreds, called Cuthbertslaw, Wulfhereslaw and Wimborntree[1497]. Then, turning to the

## particulars, we find that exactly 300 hides are ascribed to the various

estates which St. Mary of Worcester holds in this triple hundred. Those

## particulars are the following:--

[The Worcester estate.]

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

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

[The Westminster estate.]

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

H. V. H. V. Persore 2 Pidelet 5 Wiche 6 Newentune 10 Pendesham 2 Garstune 1.3 Berlingeham 3.1 Pidelet 4 Bricstelmestune 10 Peritune 6 Depeforde 10 Garstune 7 Aichintune 16 Piplintune 4.2 Beford 10 Piplintune 6.2 Longedune 30 Cumbrintune 9 Poiwic 3 Cumbrintune 10 Snodesbyrie 11 Broctune 3 Husentre 6 Stoche 15 Wich 1 Cumbrintune 2 Dormestun 5 ----- 199.0

[The Pershore estate.]

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

Persore 26 Beolege 21 Sture 20 Bradeweia 30 Lege 3 ---- 100

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

[The Evesham estate.]

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

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

Wiqwene 3.0 } Bratfortune 6.0 } Badesei 6.2 } 25 Liteltune 7.0 } Huniburne 2.2 }

Ambreslege 15.0 ---- 65.0

[The residue of Worcestershire.]

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

--------------------------------------------------------------- Worcester city 15.0 | More 1.0 | Glese 1.0 Bremesgrave 30.0 | Betune 3.2 | Merlie 0.1 [1499]Suchelei 5.0 | More 0.1 | Wich 1.0 Grastone 3.2 | Edboldelege 2.2 | Escelie 4.0 Cochesei 2.2 | Eslei 6.0 | Nordfeld 6.0 Willingewic 2.3 | Eslei 1.0 | Franchelie 1.0 Celdvic 3.0 | Ridmerlege 1.2 | Welingewiche 0.3 Chideminstre 20.0 | Celdeslai 1.0 | Escelie 1.0 Terdeberie 9.0 | Estham 3.0 | Werwelie 0.2 Clent 9.0 | Ælmeleia 11.0 | Cercehalle 2.0 Wich 0.2 | Wich 10.0 | Bellem 3.0 Clive 10.2 | Sudtune 1.0 | Hageleia 5.2 Fepsetanatum 6.0 | Mamele 0.2 | Dudelei 1.0 Crohlea 5.0 | Broc 0.2 | Suineforde 3.0 Hambyrie 14.0 | Colingvic 1.0 | Pevemore 3.0 Stoche 10.0 | Mortune 4.0 | Cradeleie 1.0 Huerteberie 20.0 | Stotune 3.0 | Belintones 5.0 Ulwardelei 5.0 | Stanford 2.2 | Witone 2.0 Alvievecherche 13.0 | Scelves 1.0 | Celvestune 1.0 Ardolvestone 15.0 | Chintune 5.0 | Cochehi 2.2 Boclintun 8.0 | Beretune 2.0 | Osmerlie 1.0 Cuer 2.0 | Tamedeberie 3.0 | Costone 3.0 Inteberga 15.2 | Wich 0.2 | Beneslei 1.0 Wich 1.0 | Clistune 3.0 | Udecote 1.2 Salewarpe 1.0 | Chure 3.0 | Russococ 5.0 Tametdeberie 0.2 | Stanford 1.2 | Stanes 6.0 Wich 0.2 | Caldeslei 1.0 | Lundredele 2.0 Matma 5.0 | Cuer 1.0 | Hatete 1.0 [1500]Mortune 5.0 | Hamme 1.0 | Hamtune 4.0 Achelenz 4.2 | Sapie 3.0 | Hortune 2.0 Buintun 1.0 | Carletune 1.1 | Cochesie 2.0 Circelenz 4.0 | Edevent 1.0 | Brotune 2.0 Actune 6.0 | Wicelbold 11.0 | Urso's hide 1.0 Lenche 4.0 | Elmerige 8.0 | Uptune 3.0 Wich 1.0 | Croelai 5.0 | Witune 0.2 Ludeleia 2.0 | Dodeham 1.0 | Hantune 4.0 Hala 10.0 | Redmerleie 1.2 | Tichenapletreu 3.0 Salewarpe 5.0 | Hanlege 1.2 | Cedeslai 25.0 Wermeslai 2.0 | Hanlege 3.0 | Hilhamatone 0.1 Linde 2.0 | Alretune 1.2 | Fecheham 10.0 Halac 1.0 | Hadesoro 2.0 | Holewei 3.0 Dunclent 3.0 | Holim 1.0 | [1501]Mertelai 13.0 Alvintune 2.0 | Stilledune 0.2 | ----- 539.0

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

[_The County Hidage._]

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

THE COUNTY HIDAGE.

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

Wiltshire 4800 4800 4800 4800 4050 Bedfordshire 1200 1000 1200 1200 1193 Cambridgeshire 2500 2500 2005 2500 1233 Huntingdonshire 850[1503] 850[1503] 800-1/2 850 747 Northamptonshire 3200 4200 3200 3200 1356 Gloucestershire 2400 2000 2400 3400 2388 Worcestershire 1200 1500 1200 1200 1189 Herefordshire 1500 1500 1005 1200 1324 Warwickshire 1200 1200 1200 1200 1338 Oxfordshire 2400 2400 2400 2400 2412 Shropshire 2300 2400 2400 2400 1245 Cheshire 1300 1200 1200 1200 512 Staffordshire 500 500 ---- 500 505

[Date of the document.]

Dr Liebermann has said that the text whence these figures are derived was probably compiled in English and in the eleventh century[1504]. If we put faith in it, we shall be inclined to set its date at some distance before that of Domesday Book. But our first question should be whether it merits credence; whether it was written by some one who knew what he was about or whether it is wild guesswork. Now when we see that the scrupulous Eyton brought out the hides of Staffordshire at 499, or rather at 499 H 2-13/30 V, and that this document makes them 500, we shall begin to take it very seriously, without relying on our own 505, the result of hasty addition. We have also seen enough to say that 1200 for Worcestershire is very near the mark. As regards other counties, we set so little reliance upon our own computation, that we are not very willing to institute a comparison; but we have given Bedfordshire 1193 hides[1505] and this document gives it 1200; we have given Oxfordshire 2412 and this document gives it 2400; we have given Gloucestershire 2388[1506] and two versions of this document give it 2400. Having seen so much agreement, we must note some cases of violent discord. For Wiltshire 4800 seems decidedly too high, though we have brought the number of its hides above 4000. The figure given to Cambridgeshire is almost twice that which Domesday would justify, and the figures given to Cheshire, Shropshire and Northamptonshire are absurdly large when compared with the numbers recorded in 1086. These cases are enough to show that, though no doubt some or all of the transcribers of The County Hidage must be charged with blunders, the divergence of the copies from Domesday can not be safely laid to this account. About certain counties there is just that agreement which we might expect, when we remember how precarious our own figures are. About certain other counties there is utter disagreement. We infer therefore that the original document did not truly state the hidage as it stood in 1086; but may it not have represented an older state of things?

[The Northampton Geld Roll.]

Let us take one case of flagrant aberration. Three copies tell us that Northamptonshire has 3200 hides; one that it has 4200. The balance of authority inclines therefore to 3200. Domesday will not give us half that number. But let us turn to the Northamptonshire Geld Roll[1507], the date of which Mr Round places between the Conquest and 1075[1508]. It gives the county 2663-1/2 hides. So here we have a case in which between 1075 and 1086 a county was relieved of about half of its hides[1509]. Also at 2664 we are within a moderate distance of 3200. But the Geld Roll does more than this. It represents Northamptonshire as composed of 28 districts; 22 of these are called 'hundreds'; two are 'two-hundreds'; four are 'other-half hundreds,' or, as we might say, 'hundred-and-a-halfs.' We work a sum:--

(22+4+6) × 100 = 3200.

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

[Value of _The County Hidage_.]

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

[Reductions of hidage.]

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

[The county quotas.]

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

[The hundred and the hundred hides.]

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

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

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

[Comparison of Domesday hidage with Pipe Rolls.]

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

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

[Under-rated and over-rated counties.]

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

[Hidage and value.]

We have seen enough in the case of Northampton to make us hesitate before we decide that the arrangement of hides set forth by Domesday

## Book is in all cases very ancient. That book shows us two different