| 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, Claudius, B. vii. f.204 b; Kemble, Saxons i. 493 | Cotton, Vespasian, A. xviii. f. 112 b; Kemble, Saxons i. 494 | Gale, Scriptores xv. p. 748 Croyland MS. | MS. Jes. Coll. Ox.; Morris, Old English Miscellany, p. 145 | Domesday Book (boroughs omitted) | |
| Wiltshire | 4800 | 4800 | 4800 | 4800 | 4050 |
| Bedfordshire | 1200 | 1000 | 1200 | 1200 | 1193 |
| Cambridgeshire | 2500 | 2500 | 2005 | 2500 | 1233 |
| Huntingdonshire | 850[1503] | 850[1503] | 8001⁄2 | 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 213⁄30 V, and that this document makes them 500, we shall begin to take it very seriously, without relying on our own 505, the result of hasty addition. We have also seen enough to say that 1200 for Worcestershire is very near the mark. As regards other counties, we set so little reliance upon our own computation, that we are not very willing to institute a comparison; but we have given Bedfordshire 1193 hides[1505] and this document gives it 1200; we have given Oxfordshire 2412 and this document gives it 2400; we have given Gloucestershire 2388[1506] and two versions of this document give it 2400. Having seen so much agreement, we must note some cases of violent discord. For Wiltshire 4800 seems decidedly too high, though we have brought the number of its hides above 4000. The figure given to Cambridgeshire is almost twice that which Domesday would justify, and the figures given to Cheshire, Shropshire and Northamptonshire are absurdly large when compared with the numbers recorded in 1086. These cases are enough to show that, though no doubt some or all of the transcribers of The County Hidage must be charged with blunders, the divergence of the copies from Domesday can not be safely laid to this account. About certain counties there is just that agreement which we might expect, when we remember how precarious our own figures are. About certain other counties there is utter disagreement. We infer therefore that the original document did not truly state the hidage as it stood in 1086; but may it not have represented an older state of things.
The Northampton Geld Roll.
Let us take one case of flagrant aberration. Three copies tell us that Northamptonshire has 3200 hides; one that it has 4200. The balance of authority inclines therefore to 3200. Domesday will not give us half that number. But let us turn to the Northamptonshire Geld Roll[1507], the date of which Mr Round places between the Conquest and 1075[1508]. It gives the county 26631⁄2 hides. So here we have a case in which between 1075 and 1086 a county was relieved of about half of its hides[1509]. Also at 2664 we are within a moderate distance of 3200. But the Geld Roll does more than this. It represents Northamptonshire as composed of 28 districts; 22 of these are called ‘hundreds’; two are ‘two-hundreds’; four are ‘other-half hundreds,’ or, as we might say, ‘hundred-and-a-halfs.’ We work a sum:—