Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 4.djvu/489

 ii s. iv. DEC. 16, 1911.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

483

241 ; Meon district, 322 ; Porchester dis- trict, 142 ; 1,163 in all. This is not very far from Bede's 1,200 hides, and part, at least, of the defect will be explained later. One section of these figures may be ques- tioned, viz., the inclusion of the hundreds of King's Somborne (111 hides) and Buddles-

fate (39) in the Southampton district, heir southern parts (e.g., Netley) are cer- tainly within the Jutish limit, but the northern parts are outside. Domesday Book records that to the manor of King's Somborne belonged the soke of two hun- dreds, and these were probably the hundreds last named. They had 150 hides between them, as if forming the moiety of an older district of 300 hides from which they had been parted. The other 150 hides may have been around Southampton, but possibly should rather be sought at Winchester. Here, Mr. Smith (in the article referred to) argues, the Britons long retained a district or little kingdom, which ultimately fell to the West Saxon king without strife. Such an addition to his realm might explain the king's gift of Winchester to the church there, for it would probably be easier for him to grant newly acquired territory than to alienate part of his hereditary lands.

If King's Somborne and Buddlesgate cannot be included in the Jutish sphere, compensation for their 150 hides must be found in the central hundreds of Esselie and Fawley ; in justification it can be pointed out that the 51 hides in Alresford included 4 hides in Soberton, in the Meon country.

Domesday Book reveals a close connexion between the Isle of Wight and the New Forest district ; each of the seven hundreds in the latter had hides in the Island appur- tenant to one or more of its manors. Per- haps the true figures for these districts were : Wight, 250 hides ; New Forest, 208.

The central hundreds of Hampshire were Fawley (97 hides) with Falmere (1), Esselie (34), and Mantesberg (77 or 83). To these an addition must be made on account of the ancient reduction of the 100 hides of Chil- combe to 1 (in Falmere). Maitland has pointed out ('D.B. and Beyond,' 496-8) that most of this reduction had been re- covered before 1086, only 28 hides being missing then. The true total will thus be 237, and perhaps another 50 should be added for Winchester, which is not described in Domesday Book. An original central group of 300 hides is thus suggested.

In the northern half of the county two noteworthy groupings, each of six " hun- dreds," appear in early records around

Basingstoke and Wallop. In 1274 the former group of six hundreds consisted of Basingstoke, Burmanspit, Hodington, Overton, Holdshott, and Chuteley. With Hodington should probably be taken the Domesday hundreds of Odiham and Edefel. There were 438 hides in these eight hundreds. If to these be added the 50 hides of the monastic manor-hundred of Crundle, cut off the outer edge, and the 104 of the ad- jacent Neatham, a total of 592^ hides in- round numbers, 600 is obtained for this com- pact north-eastern quarter of the county, a district that was little or not at all inter- fered with by outlying members in or of other hundreds. The argument is that a primitive group of 600 hides in six " hun- dreds " was cut down by successive par- titions to about 400 hides, the tradition being maintained all along by assigning six " hundreds " to the central manor.

The six hundreds appurtenant to Wallop in 1086 paying the "third penny " to it are not known, but (following indications afforded by Andover deanery) were probably Broughton (107 hides), Andover (122), Welford (67), Evinger (98), Hurstbourne (19), and Clere (56), having a total of 469 hides. If to these be added Barton Stacey (41) and Micheldever (116), we obtain 626 hides. These probably embrace the 600 hides which may be conceived as the primitive canton of Wallop. Of the hundreds named, Welford, Evinger, and Micheldever are artificial monastic hundreds, and the last is composed of members in several parts of the county, viz., Micheldever proper, Cranbourne to the west, Durley and Curdridge near Bishop's Waltham (in the Jutish district), Farley Chamberlain, Candover, and Abbot's Worthy (see Mr. F. Baring's ' Domesday Tables,' 192). The apparent excess of 26 hides may there- fore reasonably be added to supply defects in the Southampton hidage, and then (as already hinted) there will appear some indication that there was anciently a dis- trict of 300 hides around that town.

The recorded hidage of the county is 2,620, without making any allowance for Winchester or for Southampton. Probably, therefore, the standard or ideal hidage was 2,700, thus grouped :

North-east ... Basingstoke... 600 hides. North-west ... Wallop ... 600 ,, Central ... Winchester... 300 South ... Wight ... 1200

It has already been suggested in ' N. & Q.' that in the ' Tribal Hidage ' the 1,200 hides of Wight are the sum of those of the Gifla (300), Hicca (300), and Wihtgara (600). The