^{page 187 note 1} These have been collated by Mr. Birch. The references are (i) Harleian MS. 3271 f. 6b. (ii) Cotton MS. D II. f. 1b. (iii) Liber Albus, ed. Riley, . Rolls Series, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 626Google Scholar. (iv) MS. Hargrove, 313 f. 15b. (v) Spelman, , Glossarium, p. 292Google Scholar. (vi) Gale, , Rer. Angl. Scriptt. vol. iii. p. 748Google Scholar.

^{page 189 note 1} It will be enough to remind the reader that in nine cases out of thirteen the so called County Hidages are multiples of 1,200 hides (see Maitland, , Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 456Google Scholar), that the hide itself contains 120 acres, and the pound sterling twice 120 pence.

^{page 191 note 1} ‘Thaær mon ærest Myrcna hæt.’

^{page 191 note 2} ‘Mid Hæthfeld lande,’ i.e. the district east of Doncaster.

^{page 191 note 3} ‘Is in Midel Englu Færpinga.’

^{page 193 note 1} Bede, , Hist. Eccl. v. 19Google Scholar.

^{page 195 note 1} Previous commentators have usually placed the Pecsætna in Derbyshire soulh of the Peak, and they will be found entered there in the map of ‘England before the Conquest,’ contained in Poole's Historical Atlas. There seems to be no reason, however, why they should not equally well be placed north of the Peak, especially as the Anglian settlers, pushing inland from the Humber, would firs approach the Peak from the north and east.

^{page 195 note 2} An independent indication that Deira was originally made up of two divisions is perhaps to be seen in the plan brought forward in 691 by Aldfrith, king of Northumbria, and opposed by Wilfrid, for creating a bishopric of Ripon, separate from the see of York; for the bishoprics of early times, as a rule, corresponded with political divisions. (Eddi's Vita Wilfridi, § 45; ap. Historians of York, I., Rolls Series.)

^{page 196 note 1} In discussing Group IV., we did not actually identify it with any kingdom, but in the light of what has followed it is clear that the group as a whole, and not only some parts of it, may be identified with Middle Anglia

^{page 196 note 2} Bede, , Hist. Eccl. iv. 13, 19Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 1} On the other hand, it should not be overlooked that even the copyist of the earliest version of the Tribal Hidage recognised a difficulty in this district; for a marginal note is inserted attempting an explanation to the effect that it is Mercia in a very old sense of the term, ‘Thær mon ærest Myrcna hæt.’

^{page 197 note 2} Bede, , Hist. Eccl. iii. 24Google Scholar.

^{page 199 note 1} The Oxfordshire hundred scheme is remarkable for its symmetry. Eleven hundreds lie to the west of the river Cherwell, and eleven to the east, the eastern group being in its turn subdivided into two groups of five and a half hundreds by the river Thame (see Appendix).

^{page 199 note 2} The Buckinghamshire hundreds, as is well known, are in six groups of three (Domesday Studies, vol. i. p. 75).

^{page 199 note 3} The two hundreds of Wiceslea, east and west, which form part of Rutland, but which in 1086 were attached to Northamptonshire and surveyed with it, are not included in this total. The district of Wigesta in the Southern Mercian group may possibly be identifiable with these hundreds.

^{page 199 note 4} The two hundreds of Ely are not included in this reckoning, the district of South Gyrwa being entered in the Tribal Hidage in the second or Southumbrian group. It should not be forgotten that the Isle of Ely has always, even down to the present day, been reckoned a separate jurisdiction from Cambridgeshire proper.

^{page 199 note 5} The Domesday Survey and later records only reckon four hundreds in Huntingdonshire. It would appear, however, that they had once been reckoned as eight, for not only are they all assessed at 200 hides, or thereabouts, which is about twice as much as any other hundreds anywhere in this neighbourhood, but there is an ancient Peterborough document in Birch's, Cartulary (vol. iii. p. 367Google Scholar, No. 1128), which speaks of the northernmost of these hundreds as the two hundreds of Normancross, ‘of tham twam hundredum the secæd into Normannes cros.’ Domesday also, in referring to the hundred of Leytonstone, once speaks of the hundred of Kimbolton, thus, perhaps, preserving a trace of the former division of this hundred. In spite of this alteration in the way of reckoning Huntingdonshire, the Domesday Survey still gives 120 hundreds to Middle Anglia as a whole; for the loss of four hundreds in Huntingdonshire is made up for by the two hundreds of Ely added to Cambridgeshire, and the two Rutlandshire hundreds added to Northamptonshire.

^{page 200 note 1} It seems possible to identify one of these districts of 600 hides with the six hundreds in the south-west of Northamptonshire which have the Roman town of Towcester as a centre, viz., Clayley, Towcester, Norton, Warden, Sutton, and Alboldstow, and which are differentiated in Domesday from their neighbours by peculiar features connected with their hidation (see Round, , Engl. Hist. Rev. 1900, p. 82nGoogle Scholar.). It is also tempting to locate East and West Willa along the Nene between Northampton and Oundle. For here we have a district, centring round the Roman town of Irchester, which has Wellingborough and Wilby as its centre, the hundred of Wileybrook to the northward, and the Bedfordshire hundred of Wiley to the southward. Similarly it is not impossible to see a connection between Widderigga and the townships of ‘Widerintone’ and ‘Witeringham,’ near Peterborough.

^{page 201 note 1} It seems natural at this point to remark how appositely Hendrica to the north of Thames is balanced by Suthrice to the south. I am informed, however, by Mr. W. II. Stevenson that it is improbable that Surrey means the southern kingdom.

^{page 202 note 1} This distribution is in harmony with the suggestion made above, that the name of the district of Wigesta may possibly be traced in Wiceslea Wapentake in Rutlandshire. It also permits of Hicca being located next the kingdom of the Hwiccas in that part of Warwickshire that is still ecclesiastically part of the Hwiccan diocese of Worcester. Lastly, it brings Spalda into a position in Kesteven immediately facing Spalding in Holland.

^{page 202 note 2} If a mere guess is worth hazarding, we may perhaps see in the 2,000 hides of ohtgaga the districts dependent on Chester, which were acquired by the Northumbrians from the Welsh after the battle of Chester in 607, and subsequently transferred to Mercia. This transfer undoubtedly occurred, but its date is unknown. It would not, however, be unreasonable to connect it with the battle of Maserfleld in 642, when Penda defeated and killed Oswald. Such an identification, it may be remarked, is rather supported by the fact that at the date of Domesday there were apparently twenty hundreds in this district (see infra, p. 210 and the Appendix).

^{page 203 note 1} The expansion of Wessex to the west of the forest of Selwood seems only to have begun after the return of Cenwalh from his three years' exile in East Anglia. This occurred in 648, the year of the first building of the minster at Winchester. Ten years later Cenwalh drove the Welsh as far as the Parrett, but 30 years more elapsed before Ine founded Glastonbury, and it was not till 709 that Wessex had sufficient western possession to necessitate a division ecclesiastically into two bishoprics with Selwood as the boundary between them. Similarly to the east, it does not appear that Surrey was regularly part of Wessex till a much later period. For under Wulfhere, in 661, Mercia was predominant over all the southern districts, and even took away Wight and the Meonwaras from Wessex and gave them to Sussex. It may have been a desire to secure Surrey that led to Ceadwalla's campaigns against Kent in 686 and 687; but as late as 823 we still find Egbert contending for Surrey with Baldred, king of Kent, and in 835 he left Surrey with Kent to his younger son.

^{page 204 note 1} We may imagine an alteration of either ‘x thusend’ into ‘c thusend,’ or ‘tien thusend’ into ‘hund thousend.’ It is worth observing that if we read 10,000, the figure harmonises exactly with a statement made by William, of Malmesbury(Gesta Regum, ed. Stubbs, , i. 29)Google Scholar in referring to the grant of land made in 648 to his kinsman Cuthred by Cenwalh, king of Wessex. Cenwalh had just returned from a four years' exile in East Anglia, whither Penda had driven him, and he wished to set up a buffer between himself and his enemy. He accordingly gave Cuthred all the northern part of his kingdom, known as Ashdown, that is, the area now covered by Berkshire and North Wiltshire, as a sub-kingdom. In the Chronicle this transaction is described as a gift of ‘iii thusendo londes,’ a phrase which undoubtedly means 3,000 hides (see Plummer, , Saxon Chronicles, ii. 23)Google Scholar. William of Malmesbury, however, describes the grant as ‘pene tertiam regni partem,’ which is just what it would be, if the Wessex of the seventh century were reckoned as containing 10,000 hides. It is to be noted also that on this supposition Cenwalh must have left himself with an immediate dominion of 7,000 hides, a figure which is assigned by the Tribal Hidage to no less than seven other districts. If we like to go back another seventy years to the period before the attacks on Wessex of either Penda or the Northumbrians, when Ceawlin was Bretwalda and the dominions of Wessex less restricted, we get another remarkable result. For then, if the figures of the Tribal Hidage be applied, the hidation of the West Saxon territories would be as follows: Wessex proper 7,000, Ashdown with Cilternsætna 7,000, Hwicca 7,000.

^{page 206 note 1} To bring this scheme to light we have first to assume that the borough of Cambridge, which Domesday (i. 189a) says ‘se defendebat pro uno hundredo,’ was charged with 100 hides, and then to lay 50 on the part of the town to the east of the Cam, and 50 on the part to the west. The symmetry of the scheme that results makes it practically certain that these assumptions are correct, especially when it is further remarked that the boundaries of the groups and sub-groups are for the most part important physical features, such as the Ouse, the Cam, the Roman Ways, and the four great dykes that run across the Icknield Way.

^{page 207 note 1} Beda, , Hist. Eccles. ii. 5Google Scholar.

^{page 209 note 1} For example, Farnham in Surrey, or Tewkesbury and Berkeley in Gloucestershire.

^{page 209 note 2} It appears certain that the appearance of the Staffordshire hundred of Cudolvestan in the surveys of both Warwickshire and Northamptonshire is due to this kind of error. It is also clear that large tracts of Oxfordshire are by mistake entered in the Northamptonshire survey, though in this case the names of the Hundreds are not given.

^{page 209 note 3} The figures given in the table will be found to differ in some instances from those given by DrStubbs, .(Constitutional History, vol. i. ch. v.)Google Scholar This is partly to be accounted for by the fact that Dr. Stubbs makes no distinction between hundreds, half hundreds, and hundreds and a half; but even so, it is difficult to see how one or two of his figures have been reached.

^{page 211 note 1} A.-S. Chron. ann. 823. ‘The same year Egbert sent his son Ethelwuh with a large force into Kent, and they drove Baldred the king northwards over the Thames. And the men of Kent) and the men of Surrey, and the South Saxons, and the East Saxons submitted to him.’ According to Mr. Plummer, in his note on this passage, Sigred of Essex is found signing charters as ‘rex’ in 811, but disappears after 823, 'unless he is to be found among the Sigreds who sign a little later as ‘dux.’ Egbert dying in 836 and Ethelwulf in 858, both kept these acquisitions separate from Wessex proper, and left them to a younger son.

^{page 212 note 1} This certainly points to the Wessex portion of the West Saxon scheme being later in date than the accession of Alfred. For until his accession Surrey went with Kent and formed a part of the eastern sub-kingdom several times assigned to a younger scion of the West-Saxon house. (A.-S. Chron. an. 836, 855.)

^{page 212 note 2} Here, again, we have an indication, as to the date of the West-Saxon scheme, evidently in agreement with the tradition that the hundreds as they existed in the eleventh century had been reorganised, if not, as some would have it, created by the West Saxons.

^{page 213 note 1} See on this question, Maitland, , Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 457–9Google Scholar; also Round, , Engl. Hist. Rev. 1900, p. 83Google Scholar, where it is pointed out that the Domesday figures for Northamptonshire point to a recent reduction of 60 per cent.

^{page 214 note 1} It will be shown directly that in both East Anglia and Northamptonshire there existed an equal assessment of the hundreds at 100 hides, even after it was. abandoned elsewhere.

^{page 215 note 1} As examples we may give the assessment of a Norfolk hundred and a Suffolk half hundred. Walsham hundred:—Acle, 24d.; Wood Bastwick, 16d.; Beighton, 12d.; Fishley, 10d.; Halvergate, 24d.; Hemblington, 16d.; Moulton, 15½d.; Panxfordand Ranworth, 16d.; Reedham, 16d.; Tunstall, 8d.; Upton, 24d.; South Walsham, 48d.; Wickhampton, 10½d.—total, 1l. Cosford half hundred:—Ash, 1½d.; Bildeston, 5d.; Brettenham, 10d.; Chelsworth, 3¾d.; Elmsett with Aldham, 15d.; Hadleigh, 11½d.; Hitcham with Kettlebarstonand Wattisham, 15d.; Kersey, 7½d.; Lafham, 3½d.; Layham, 7½d.; Layham, 4½d.; Lindsey, 6d.; ‘Manetuna,’ 3d.; Naughton, 5d.; Nedging, 2½d.; Semer, 2½d.; Thorpe Morieux, 5d.; Whatfield, 5d.; alia Whatfield, 6d.; Total, 9s. 11¾d. In area these two districts are much about the same size.

^{page 215 note 2} Norfolk, excluding the two urban hundreds of Norwich and Thetford, contained 34 hundreds, and we find from the Pipe Rolls that the sum charged on it for the Danegeld about the year 1150 was 330l. 2s. 2d. Suffolk, excluding Ipswich, contained 23½ hundreds, and was charged with 235l. os. 2d. These figures, taken from Professor Maitland's, Domesday Book and Beyond (p. 400)Google Scholar, are not exactly at the rate of 10l. a hundred, but they are sufficiently near it to warrant the statement in the text.

^{page 216 note 1} The Domesday returns hardly ever work out quite correctly to this amount, but they are so very near to it in every case that this conclusion is hardly doubtful. For example: Corby hundred, 39 hides; Stoke, ; Warden, 37¾; Higham hundred and a half, 60½; the eight hundreds of Oundle, which formed the Soke of Peterborough, 320 hides + 1½ hides at Little Catworth in Huntingdonshire. As a specimen of the distribution of the 40 hides among the vills, we may give the figures for Mawsley Hundred. They are: Brixworth, 9½ hides; Faxton with Mawsley, 2; Hanging Houghton, 4¾; Holcot, 4¾; Lamport, 4¾; Scaldwell, 4¾; Walgrave and Old, 9¾—total, 40 hides.

^{page 216 note 2} Round, , Engl. Hist. Rev. 1900Google Scholar. The reduction had not been carried out in many of the hundreds by this simple method of doing a proportion sum. In several the hides would appear to have been distributed afresh.

^{page 216 note 3} Round, , Feudal England, p. 153Google Scholar. Maitland, , Domesday Book and Beyond, P. 457Google Scholar.

^{page 217 note 1} Quoted from Maitland, , Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 400Google Scholar.

^{page 218 note 1} The figure given by Professor Maitland is 2412, but 80 hides are to be added to this for the Oxfordshire fiefs of the Bishop of Contance (46½), Hugh de Grentmaisnil (29½), and William Pevrel (4), erroneously entered in the Northamptonshire Survey.

^{page 218 note 2} The figure given by Professor Maitland is 1356, but the 80 hides belonging to Oxfordshire must be deducted, and also the 80 hides belonging to the two hundreds of Wiceslea in Rutland.

^{page 218 note 3} Professor Maitland, excludes the boroughs(Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 409)Google Scholar; but in the survey Huntingdon is given 50 hides, and Cambridge is said to defend itself as a hundred. We have already shown what a symmetrical result is obtained if this latter is reckoned as 100 hides (supra, p. 206). On the other hand, we have only reckoned Bedford as one hide, though for some purposes it counted as a half hundred. For Domesday says, ‘nunquam hidata fuit praeter I hidam’ (D. B. i. 209a). In this respect it resembled Buckingham. Oxford, Northampton, and London do not seem to have been hidated.

^{page 219 note 1} Maitland, , Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 456Google Scholar.

^{page 219 note 2} For the assessments of Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, see Maitland, , Domesday Book and Beyond, 451–5, 457Google Scholar. The figures for the more northern counties are:—Warwickshire about 1,300 hides, Staffordshire 500 hides—total 1,800 hides. Shropshire about 1,200 hides, Cheshire about 520 hides, South Lancashire 79 hides—total 1,800 hides.

^{page 221 note 1} It must be admitted that the figures given for the London tribute in 1018 are quite unaccountable. Even if we suppose that London gelded at 1,200 hides, it would take a rate of 17s. 6d. to produce 1,050l., and the chronicle speaks of 10,500l. It is a somewhat remarkable coincidence that in the Tribal Hidage Hendrica and Essex, the two districts which immediately adjoin London, together have an assessment of 10,500 hides.

^{page 222 note 1} Stubbs, , Const. Hist. ch. vi. § 68Google Scholar.