Feudal Statistics 29 



for (for aught I can find) England might well 

 have had a population of ii-2 millions at the time 

 of the Heptarchy, which would be answerable to 

 the quantities in the table : for the ancient meaning 

 of the word Hide (see King Alfred's trans, of 

 Bede) would seem to be the land of one family, 

 hence a population of i^ millions or a little less 

 might correspond to 250,000 families (bearing in 

 mind that the table presumably falls far short of 

 the 40 modern English counties) ; for example 

 Bede names the Isle of Wight as the land of 1,200 

 families, and the recorded population of 1086 is 

 1,124 by Ellis' cast. True it is that in 1065 the 

 Hide is a fiscal unit, which is not to say that it at 

 no time had been closely allied with reality, nor, 

 because this artificial Hide of D. B. is computed at 

 1 20 fiscal acres, is it to be therefore imagined that 

 each head of a family in Heptarchic days had that 

 amount of arable. For I would suppose that never 120 statute 

 in the History of England could ^ of the heads of arable, not 

 families have been masters of so many ploughed 

 acres with suitable rights of wood, pasture and 

 meadow for the extremely simple reason that 5 

 men would be but a scanty allowance for the 

 working of such a tenement (by theory 2 men 

 would be ploughing the greater part of the year, 

 and if two 4 ox teams were used 4 of them). And 

 plain it seems to be that this vision of fraternal 

 harmony (at the rate of 120 acres of arable) would 

 necessitate an overwhelming majority of the popula- 

 tion in a dependent condition ; that is to say, as 

 labourers not necessarily servile, but under condi- 

 tions of subjection as employed persons. This of 

 course does not include such a supposed stipulation 



