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]].
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.
When once we leave the accurate reports of a historian like Beda for the evidence of later manuscripts, we must necessarily proceed with great caution, and in reasonable distrust of our conclusions. This must be borne in mind and fairly appreciated throughout the following calculations.
An authority already mentioned[[171]] computes the number of hides in Eastanglia at 30,000. It is difficult to determine exactly what counties are meant by this, as we do not know the date of the document; but supposing, what is most probable, that Norfolk and Suffolk are intended, we should have a total of 2,241,060 acres in those two great farming districts[[172]]. But even this large amount will only give us a quotient of 73·7 acres per hide, and it may fairly be diminished by at least one half, to account for commons, marshes, forests and other land not brought under the plough from the seventh to the tenth centuries.
The same table states Essex at 7000 hides. The acreage of that county is 979,000 acres[[173]], hence 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.
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.
| Name | No. of | Actual | ||
| hides. | acreage. | |||
| Trotterscliff | Kent. | 12 | 1150 | |
| Dailesford | Kent. | 6 | 540 | |
| Sunningwell | Berks. | 15 | 1200 | |
| Denchworth | Berks. | 30 | 2800 | |
| Graveney | Kent. | 32 | 1920 | |
| Marcham | Berks. | 50 | 4940 | |
| { | Kington Kington | Wilts. Wilts. | 40 40 | 2320 3950 |
| Petersham | Surrey | 10 | 660 | |
| Brokenborough | Wilts. | 50 | 2950 | |
| { | Alresford Alresford | Hants. Hants. | 40 40 | 1250 3660 |
| Whitchurch | Hants. | 110 | 7330 | |
| Beddington | Surrey. | 70 | 3830 | |
| { | Compton Compton | Dorset. Dorset. | 40 40 | 1390 1520 |
| Sanderstead | Surrey. | 32 | 2250 | |
| { | Clapham Clapham | Surrey. Surrey. | 30 30 | 1070 1920 |
| Micheldever | Hants. | 100 | 9340 | |
| Wrington | Somers. | 20 | 1530 | |
| Barrow on Humb. | Linc. | 50 | 4620 | |
| Chertsey | Surrey. | 200 | 10020 | |
| Sutton | Surrey. | 30 | 1830 | |
| Aldingbourn | Sussex. | 38 | 3800 | |
| Ferring | Sussex. | 12 | 1070 | |
| Denton | Sussex. | 25 | 890 | |
| Bradfield | Berks. | 48 | 4270 | |
| Aston | Berks. | 55 | 2030 | |
| Charing | Kent. | 60 | 4060 | |
| King’s Worthy | Hants. | 30 | 2190 | |
| Hurstborne Prior | Hants. | 60 | 3070 | |
| Newnton | Wilts. | 10 | 810 | |
| Garford | Berks. | 15 | 1170 | |
| Mordon | Surrey. | 20 | 1700 | |
| Blewbury | Berks. | 100 | 6950 | |
| Sotwell | Berks. | 15 | 1310 | |
| Goosey | Berks. | 10 | 850 | |
| { | Hanney, East Hanney, West | Berks. Berks. | 20 20 | 600 1390 |
| Badgworth | Somers. | 25 | 1470 | |
| Drayton | Berks. | 20 | 1950 | |
| Barton | Berks. | 40 | 3590 | |