Two issues--quite distinct--are involved. In the first place, Mr Seebohm contends that Professor Vinogradoff must not argue from 'the custom of Kent' to the rest of England, because (_inter alia_) Kent, unlike the rest of England, was divided into _sulungs_, which points to some difference in its organization.[197] This contention is sound, and is actually strengthened if we reject the identity of _sulung_ and _solanda_. But, in the second place, he endeavours to explain away the Essex case of subdivision at Eadwulfsness, to which the Professor appeals, by connecting it with the Kentish system through the term _solanda_. This, as I have shown above, is based on a misreading of the evidence, and is contrary to the facts of the case. Let us then look more closely at the Essex instance of subdivision. It is taken from one Manor alone, the great 'soke' of Eadwulfsness, in the north-east corner of the county. This 'soke' comprised the townships of Thorpe 'le soken', Kirby 'le soken', and Walton 'le soken' (better known as Walton-on-the-Naze). Such names proclaim the Danish origin of the community, and it is noteworthy that the 'hidarii', on whom the argument turns, are found only at Thorpe and Kirby, the very two townships which bear Danish names. This circumstance points to quite another track. That the system in this little corner of Essex was wholly peculiar had been pointed out by Hale, and it might perhaps have originated in the superimposition of hides on a previous system, instead of in the breaking up of the hide and virgate system. But this is only a conjecture. The two facts on which I would lay stress are that at Thorpe, according to Hale, 'the holders of the nine hides (in 1279) possessed also among them seventy-two messuages', which, by its proportion of eight to the hide, favours Mr Seebohm's views; and that the holdings of the 'hidarii' were rigidly formed on the decimal system (such as 60, 30, 15, 7-1/2 acres, or 40, 20, 10, 5 acres),[198] unlike the holdings of an odd number of acres on the Kentish Manors of St. Augustine's. The reason for the Essex system was clearly the necessity of keeping the holdings in a fixed relation to the hide, that their proportion of the hide's service might be easily determined. These two points have, perhaps, I think, been overlooked by both of the eminent scholars in their controversy.