Part 57

Of the Kentish sulung very little can be discovered from Domesday. Apparently it was divided into 4 yokes (_iuga_)[1595] and the yoke was probably divided into 4 virgates. We have indeed one statement connecting acres with sulungs which some have thought of great importance. 'In the common land of St. Martin [i.e. the land which belongs to the _communitas_ of the canons of St. Martin] are 400 acres and a half which make two sulungs and a half[1596].' Thence, a small quantity being neglected, the inference has been drawn that the Kentish sulung was composed of 160 acres, while some would read '400 acres and a half' to mean 450 acres and would so get 180 acres for the sulung[1597]. But the entry deals with one particular case and it connects real acres with rateable units:--the canons have 400-1/2 or more probably 450 acres, which are rated at 2-1/2 sulungs. If we passed to another estate, we might find a different relation between the fiscal and the real units. Kent was egregiously undertaxed and as a general rule its fiscal sulung will have many real acres. Turning to the cases in which the geldability of land is expressed in terms of sulungs and acres, or yokes and acres, we can gather no more than that the sulung is greater than 60 acres, so much greater that '3 sulungs less 60 acres[1598]' is a natural phrase, and that the half-sulung is greater than 40[1599] and than 42 acres[1600]. We may suspect that the Exchequer was reckoning 120 (fiscal) acres to the sulung but can not say that this is proved.

[Kemble's theory.]

And now we must glance at certain theories opposed to that which has been here stated. Kemble contends that the hide contained 30 or 33 Saxon which were equal to 40 Norman acres, and that the hide of Domesday Book contains 40 Norman acres[1601]. Now in so far as this doctrine deals with the time before the Conquest, we will postpone our judgment upon it. So far as it deals with the Domesday hide, it is supported by two arguments. One of these is to the effect that England has not room for all the hides that are attributed to it if the hide had many more than 30 or 40 acres; this argument also we will for a while defer. The other[1602] is based on a single passage in the Exeter Domesday relating to the manor of Poleham. That entry seems to involve an equation which can only be solved if 1 virgate = 10 acres. William of Mohun has a manor which in the time of King Edward paid geld for 10 hides; he has in demesne 4 H., 1 V., 6 A. and the villeins have 5-1/2 H., 4 A.[1603] Now three or four such entries would certainly set the matter at rest; but a single entry can not. By way of answer it will be enough to say that the very next entry seems to imply an equation of precisely the same form, but one that is plainly absurd. This same William has a manor called Ham; it paid geld for 5 hides; there were 3 H., 8 A. in demesne and the villains had 2 H. less 12 A. Shall we draw the conclusion that 5 H. = 5 H. - 4 A.? The truth we suspect to be that here, as in Middlesex, geldable units and actual areal units have already begun to perplex each other. Both Poleham and Ham are what we call 'over-rated' manors. It is known that Poleham contains 10 hides and Ham 5 hides, but, when we come to look for the acres that will make up the due tale of hides, we can not find them; for let King William's officers have never so clear a terminology of their own, the country folk will not for ever be distinguishing between 'acres _ad geldum_' and 'acres _ad arandum_' But be the explanation what it may, we repeat that the one equation that Kemble could find to support his argument is found in the closest company with an equation which when similarly treated produces a nonsensical result. This is all the direct evidence that he has produced from Domesday Book in favour of the hide of 40 acres. Robertson, while holding that the hide of Mercia contained 120 acres, adopted Kemble's opinion that the hide of Wessex contained 40 without producing any witness from Domesday save only the passage about Poleham[1604]. Eyton reckons 48 'gheld acres' to the 'gheld hide,' but he leaves us utterly at a loss to tell how he came by this computation[1605].

[The ploughland and the plough.]

Another theory we must examine. It is ingenious and, were it true, would throw much light on a dark corner. It starts from the facts disclosed by the survey of the East Riding of Yorkshire[1606]. In that district, it is said, the number of carucates for geld that there are in any manor (this number we will call _a_) is usually either equal to, or just twice the number (which we call _b_) of the 'lands for one plough,' or, as we say, teamlands. Further, it can be shown from maps and other modern evidences that the manors in which _a = b_ were manors with two common fields, in other words, were 'two-course manors,' while those in which _a = 2b_ were manors with three common fields, in other words were 'three-course manors.' The suggested explanation is that while the teamland or 'land for one plough' means the amount of land that one plough will till in the course of a year, the 'carucate for geld' is the amount of land which one plough tills in one field in the course of a year. Manor _X_, let us suppose, is a two-course manor; the whole amount of land which a plough will till there in a year will lie in one field; therefore in this case _a = b_. Manor _Y_ is a three-course manor; in a given year a plough will there till a certain quantity of land, but half its work will have been done in one field, half in another; therefore in this case _a = 2b_.

[The Yorkshire carucates.]

Now we must own to doubting the possibility of deciding with any certainty from comparatively modern evidence which (if any) of the Yorkshire vills were under a system of three-course culture in the eleventh century. In the year 1086 many of them were lying and for long years had lain waste either in whole or in part. Thus the first group of examples that is put before us as the foundation for a theory consists of 15 manors the sum of whose carucates for geld is 91-1/4 while the sum of the teamlands is 91-3/4. What was the state of these manors in 1086? Three of them were absolutely waste. The recorded population on the others consisted of four priests, one sokemean, eighty-four villeins and twenty-six bordiers; the number of existing teams was 35-1/2; the total _valet_ of the whole fifteen estates was £7. 1_s._, though they had been worth £72 in King Edward's day[1607]. It is obvious enough that very little land is really being ploughed, and surely it is a most perilous inference that, when culture comes back to these deserted villages, the old state of things will be reproduced, so that we shall be able to decide which of them had three and which had two fields in the days before the devastation. Further, we can not think that, even for the East Riding of Yorkshire, the figures show as much regularity as has been attributed to them. In the first place, there are admittedly many cases in which neither of the two equations of which we have spoken (_a = b_ or _a = 2b_) is precisely true. We can only say that they are approximately true. Then there are other cases--too many, as we think, to be treated as exceptional--in which _a_ bears to _b_ some very simple ratio which is neither 1:1 nor yet 2:1; it is 3:2, or 4:3, or 5:3.

[Relation between teamlands and fiscal carucates.]

But at any rate, to extend the theory to the whole of Yorkshire, to say nothing of all England, is out of the question. No doubt as a whole Yorkshire was (in the terms that we have used) an 'over-rated' county: that is to say, as a general rule, _a_, if not equal to, was greater than _b_. But it can not be said that when _a_ was not equal to _b_ it normally was, or even tended to be equal to 2_b_. We take by chance a page describing the possessions of Count Alan[1608]; it contains 20 entries; in one of these _a = b_, in one _a = 2b_, in one _b_ is greater than _a_; in ten cases the proportion which _a_ bears to _b_ is 3:2, in two it is 4:3, in two it is 5:3, in one 6:5, in one 7:5, in one it is 17:12. In the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham and Derby an application of this doctrine would be ludicrous, for very commonly _b_ is greater than _a_. What is more, the method of taxation that it presupposes is so unjust that we are loath to attribute it to any one. To tax a man in proportion to the area of the land that he treats as arable, that is a plausibly equitable method; to tax him in proportion to the area that he has ploughed in a given year, that also is a plausibly equitable method; but the present proposal could only be explained as a deliberate effort to tax the three-field system out of existence[1609]. To take the figures that have been suggested to us by the author of this theory, we suppose that _X_ is using a team of oxen in 'a two-course manor'; he has 160 acres of arable land and ploughs 80 of them in every year. Then in another village _Y_ is using a team of oxen according to the three-course system; he has, we are told, 180 acres of arable and ploughs 120 acres in every year. This unfortunate _Y_ is to pay double the amount of geld that is paid by _X_. We could understand a demand that _Y_ should pay nine shillings when _X_ pays eight, for _Y_ has in all 180 acres of arable and _X_ has 160. We could understand a demand that _Y_ should pay three shillings when _X_ pays two, for _Y_ sows 120 acres a year and _X_ sows 80. But nothing short of a settled desire to extirpate the three-field system will prompt us to exact two shillings from _Y_ for every one that is paid by _X_. Lastly, we must repeat in passing our protest[1610] against the introduction into this context of those figures which express the aspirations of that enthusiast of the plough, Walter of Henley. That the 'land for one team' of Domesday Book points normally or commonly to an area of arable land containing 160 or 180 acres we can not believe. If we give it on an average 120 acres we may perhaps find room for the recorded team lands, though probably we shall often have to make our acres small; but county after county will refuse to make room for teamlands with 160 or 180 acres[1611]. No doubt the regularity of the Yorkshire figures is remarkable. There are other districts in northern England where we may see some one relation between _A_ and _B_ steadily prevailing. We will call to mind, by way of example, the symmetrical arrangement that we have seen in one of the Rutland wapentakes, where _A_ = 4_B_. This we can not explain, nor will it be explained until Domesday Book has been rearranged by hundreds and vills; we have, however, hazarded a guess as to the quarter in which the explanation may be found[1612]. As to the Yorkshire figures, we think that of all the figures in the record they are the least likely to be telling us the simple truth about the amount of cultivated land.

[Sidenote: The fiscal hide of 120 acres.]

We may now briefly recapitulate the evidence which leads us to the old-fashioned belief that King William's Exchequer reckons 120 acres to the hide. There are at the least twenty sums set before us which involve the equation: 1H. = 120A. or 1V. = 30A. We doubt whether there are two sums which involve any one other equation. That there are sums which involve or seem to involve other equations we fully admit; but when a fair allowance has been made for mistranscription, miscalculation, the loss of acres due to partitionary arrangements[1613], and, above all, to a transition from the rateable to the real, from the hidage on the roll to the strips in the fields, we can not think that these cases are sufficiently numerous to shake our faith. We have further seen that in Essex and East Anglia the acres of the fiscal system lie in batches of just those sizes which would be produced if an unit of 120 acres was being broken into halfs, thirds, quarters and fifths. Lastly, 'the rustics' of the twelfth century 'tell us that the hide according to its original constitution consists of a hundred acres[1614]' and probably these rustics reckon by the long hundred.

[Antiquity of the large hide.]

If now we are satisfied about this matter, we seem to be entitled to some inferences about remoter history. The fiscal practice of reckoning 120 acres to the hide can hardly be new. Owing to many causes, among which we recall the partitionary system of taxation, the influence of an equity which would consider value as well as area, and the disturbing forces of privilege and favouritism, the fiscal hide of the Confessor's day has strayed far away from the fields and is no measure of land[1615]. At its worst it is jobbery; at its best a lame compromise between an unit of area and an unit of value. And yet, for all this, it is composed of acres, of 120 acres. The theory that is involved in this mode of calculation is so little in harmony with the existing facts that we can not but believe that it is ancient. It seems to point to a time long gone by when the typical tenement which was to serve as an unit of taxation generally had six score arable acres, little more or less.

FOOTNOTES:

[1340] D. B. i. 307 b, 308.

[1341] It will be convenient for us to adopt this term a 'teamland' as an equivalent for the _Terra ad unam carucam_ of our record, so that '_b_ teamlands' shall translate _Terra ad b carucas_. The reader is asked to accept this note as an 'interpretation clause.'

[1342] D. B. i. 353.

[1343] D. B. i. 308, Trectone.

[1344] D. B. i. 275 b, Burnulfestune.

[1345] D. B. i 337 b.

[1346] See pp. 400-403.

[1347] We shall not complain of our tools; but Domesday Book is certainly not impeccable. As to its omissions see Eyton, Notes on Domesday (1880); also Round, Feudal England, 43.

[1348] Agricultural Returns, 1895 (Board of Agriculture) p. 34. Tidal water is excluded.

[1349] The received figures are: Middlesex, 149,046, London, 75,442. From older sources we give Middlesex, 180,480: Population Abstract, 1833, vol. i. p. 376.

[1350] For some good remarks on these matters see Eyton, Notes on Domesday. Lincoln, Nottingham and Northampton would require correction because of the treatment that Rutland has received. The boundary of Shropshire has undergone changes. The inclusion of stretches of Welsh ground increases the population without adding to the hidage of some western counties.

[1351] See above, p. 7.

[1352] Thus Leicester is charged with £100. 0_s._ 0_d._, with £99. 19_s._ 11_d._ and with £99. 19_s._ 4_d._

[1353] In 8 Hen. II. several of the counties answer for about £10 less than had formerly been demanded from them.

[1354] The inclusion of the boroughs would have led to many difficulties. London, for example, though no account is taken of it in D. B., seems to have gelded for 1200 hides. (Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 14,252, f. 126.)

[1355] We omit the 'ingeldable carucates' which occur in some hidated counties. This may introduce a little caprice. If the jurors in one of these counties ascribe twelve carucates to a manor, we do not count them. If they had spoken of hides which never gelded, we should have counted them; and yet we may agree with Eyton that the two phrases would mean much the same thing. But this source of error or caprice is not very important in our present context. Thus we take Dorset. Eyton gives it 2321 hides and then by adding 'quasi-hides' brings up the number to 2650. The difference between these two figures is not large when regarded from the point that we are occupying. I have thought that the difficulty would be better met by the warning that Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset and Devon contain considerable stretches of unhidated royal demesne, than by my reckoning as hides what Eyton called 'quasi-hides.' In the case of Dorset, Somerset and Stafford I have placed Eyton's figures below my own and signed them with the letter _E_. I know full well that his are much more accurate than mine. He probably gave to each county that he examined more months than I have given weeks to the whole of England. In comparing our results, it should be remembered that, at least in Staffordshire, he dealt with the county boundary in a manner which, in my ignorance, I dare not adopt.

[1356] My calculations about Leicestershire are more than usually rough, owing to the appearance of the curious 'hide' or 'hundred' or whatever it is. See on the one hand Stevenson, E. H. R. v. 95, and on the other Round, Feudal England, 82. Whether this unit contained 12 or 18 carucates is not of very great importance to us at the moment. But there are other difficulties in Leicestershire. In Cornwall I was compelled to make an assumption as to the peculiar _ager_ or _acra_ of that county; but no reasonable theory about this matter would seriously affect the number of Cornwall's hides.

[1357] The usual formula is: 'Tunc se defendit pro _a_ hidis, modo pro _a´_.' We place _a_ in Col. IV., _a´_ in Col. V.

[1358] The usual formula is: 'T. R. E. geldabat pro _a_ hidis; ibi tamen sunt _a´_ hidae.' We place _a_ in Col. IV. and _a´_ in Col. V.; and we shall argue hereafter, with some hesitation, that the taxation of this county has been increased under William.

[1359] The words _Terra est_ are written and are followed by a blank space. Many instances in Kent and Sussex.

[1360] On the other hand, when I find a statement about _B_ and none about _C_, I do not assume that _C_ = _B_; on the contrary, I read the entry to mean that _C_ = 0. In other words, it is very possible that there should be teamlands without teams; but I do not think that for Domesday's purposes there can be teams (i.e. teams at work) without land that is being ploughed, though it is true that often, and in some counties habitually, _C_ will be slightly greater than _B_.

[1361] One of the chief difficulties in the way of accurate computation is occasioned by what we may call the complex entries. We start with some such statement as this: 'The Bishop holds Norton. It defends itself for _a_ hides. There is land for _b_ teams. There are _d_ teams on the demesne and the villeins have _e_ teams.' But then we read: 'Of this land [_or_ of these _a_ hides] Roger holds _m_ hides; there are _n_ teams on the demesne and the villeins have _o_ teams.' Here the total number of hides is _a_, and not _a_ + _m_; and I think that the total number of teamlands is _b_, and not _b_ + some unstated number held by Roger; but the total number of teams is _d_ + _e_ + _n_ + _o_. Entries in this form are not very uncommon, and therefore this explanation seemed to be required.

[1362] Pearson, History of England, ii. 665.

[1363] Col. IX. gives I. divided by II. Col. X. gives I. divided by VI. Col. XI. gives I. divided by VII. Col. XII. gives II. divided by VI. Col. XIII. gives II. divided by VII. Col. XIV. gives VI. divided by VII. Col. XV. gives VIII. divided by VI. [or if there is no VI. for this county, then by VII.].

[1364] In Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford and Shropshire I was compelled to adopt as the divisor the number of teams instead of the number of teamlands. As it is fairly certain that these counties were 'underteamed' (_B_ > _C_), the resulting quotient (annual value of land actually tilled by a team) should be diminished before it is compared with the figures given for other counties.

[1365] C. S. Taylor, Analysis of Gloucestershire Domesday (Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeol. Soc. 1887-9).

[1366] But this is intended to include males only: the _ancillae_ are left out.

[1367] Mr Taylor says in his preface: 'The work has occupied a large part of my leisure time for five years.' There is therefore some audacity in my printing my figures beside his. It is clear that we have put different constructions upon some of the composite entries concerning large manors. See below, p. 457. Mr Taylor, like Eyton, computes only 48 'geld acres' to the hide; I reckon 120 acres to the hide; that, however, is in this context a trifling matter.

[1368] Mr Taylor has brought out 15_s._ 5_d._ as the average _valet_ of land tilled by a team. By taking Pearson's _valet_ and my teams I have brought out 15_s._ 0_d._

[1369] For Dorset and Somerset my figures can be checked by Eyton's. For Wiltshire, Devon, Cornwall, by the Geld Inquests. These give for Wiltshire (see W. H. Jones, Domesday for Wiltshire, 158 ff.) 3955 H. 3 V.; for Devon (see Devonshire Domesday, ed. Devonsh. Assoc. p. xlix.) 1029 H. 1 V. 3 F.; for Cornwall 401 H. 3 V. 1 F. I give for Wiltshire 4050 H., for Devon 1119 H., for Cornwall 399 H.

[1370] Lincoln, 5·0; Nottingham, 4·4; Derby, 3·9; Surrey, 3·7; Hampshire, 3·6; Middlesex, 3·4; Dorset, 3·3; Cambridge, 3·1; Berkshire, 3·0; Wiltshire, 2·9; Hertford, Northampton, Warwick, Somerset, 2·8; Huntingdon, 2·6; Oxford, 2·5; Bedford and Buckingham, 2·4; Cornwall and Stafford, 2·2; Devon, 2·1. For Kent the figure would be near 3·9, for Sussex near 3·3, for apparently in these counties there was approximate equality between the number of teams and the number of teamlands.

[1371] One word about the meaning of the _valets_. I think it very clear from thousands of examples that an estate is valued 'as a going concern.' The question that the jurors put to themselves is: 'What will this estate bring in, peopled as it is and stocked as it is?' In other words, they do not endeavour to make abstraction of the villeins, oxen, etc. and to assign to the land what would be its annual value if it were stocked or peopled according to some standard of average culture. Consequently in a few years the value of an estate may leap from one pound to three pounds or to five shillings or even to zero. Eyton, Dorset, 56, has good remarks on this matter.

[1372] Seebohm, Village Community, 85-6. To the contrary Round, in Domesday Studies, i. 209, and Feudal England, 35.

[1373] Round, Feudal England, 35.