Upon a review of the preceding passages it may be inferred that the hynden consisted of ten tithings, and consequently answered to what we more commonly call a hundred: it may perhaps be suggested that, if any distinction existed between these two terms, the hynden represented the numerical, the hundred the territorial division. But their original identity may be argued from an important passage in the law of Ini. He ordains[460]: “He that is charged with mortal feud, and is willing to deny the slaying on oath; then shall there be in the hynden one king’s oath of thirty hides, as well for a noble as a churl, be it whichever it be.“ ----- Footnote 460: “Seðe bið werfǽhðe betogen, and he onsacan wille ðæs sleges mid áðe, ðonne sceal beón on ðǽre hyndenne án cyningáð be xxx hída, swá be gesíðcund men swá be ceorliscum, swá hwæðer swá hit sý.” Ini. § 54. Thorpe, i. 136. Upon this passage the late Mr. Price had the following note, which is interesting, though I cannot agree with his conclusion: “It has been already observed that the hynden consisted of ten persons, and, like hynde in the words twýhynde, sixhynde, twelfhynde, appears to have been formed from hund, of which the original meaning was _ten_. The hynden therefore will correspond to the _turba_ of the Civil Law (‘quia Turba decem dicuntur.’ Leg. Præt. 4. § Turbam), the _Tourbe_ of the French Coutumes: 'Coutume si doit verefier par deux tourbes et chacun d’icelles par dix temoins.' Loisel. liv. v. tit. 5. c. 13.” But the correspondence noted will entirely depend upon the fact of the hynden really being a collection of ten men, which I do not admit. There is no dispute as to the meaning of _Turba_ or _Tourbe_: but if, as it is not impossible, _turba_ should be really identical with þorp, _vicus_, it might deserve consideration whether the original village was not supposed to consist of ten families and so to form the tithing or gyldscipe. -----