The calculation for Sussex is rendered uncertain in some measure, through our ignorance of the relative proportion borne by the _weald_ in the seventh century or earlier, to its present extent. The whole county is computed at 907,920 acres, and the weald at 425,000 acres. We may be assured that every foot of the weald was forest in the time of Beda: to this must be added 110,000 acres which are still waste and totally unfit for the plough: 30,000 acres now computed to be occupied by roads, buildings, etc. may be neglected: our amount will therefore state itself thus: Whole acreage 907,920 Weald and waste 535,000 ———- 372,920 acres. Now Sussex contained 7000 hides[170], and this will give us a quotient of 53·25 acres per hide. Here again, if we make allowance for the condition of Saxon husbandry, we shall hardly err much in assuming something near thirty to thirty-three acres to have been the arable hide in Sussex. ----- Footnote 170: Beda, Hist. Eccl. iv. 13. ----- When once we leave the accurate reports of a historian like Beda for the evidence of later manuscripts, we must necessarily proceed with great caution, and in reasonable distrust of our conclusions. This must be borne in mind and fairly appreciated throughout the following calculations. An authority already mentioned[171] computes the number of hides in Eastanglia at 30,000. It is difficult to determine exactly what counties are meant by this, as we do not know the date of the document; but supposing, what is most probable, that Norfolk and Suffolk are intended, we should have a total of 2,241,060 acres in those two great farming districts[172]. But even this large amount will only give us a quotient of 73·7 acres per hide, and it may fairly be diminished by at least one half, to account for commons, marshes, forests and other land not brought under the plough from the seventh to the tenth centuries. ----- Footnote 171: See Chap. III. p. 82. Footnote 172: Norf. 1,292,300, Suff. 938,760, = 2,241,060. Of these I believe only about 2,000,000 are actually under cultivation, which would reduce the quotient to sixty-three acres and two-thirds per hide. ----- The same table states Essex at 7000 hides. The acreage of that county is 979,000 acres[173], hence upon the whole calculation we shall have 1396⁄7 acres per hide. But of course here a very great deduction is to be made for Epping, Hainault and other forests, and for marshy and undrained land. ----- Footnote 173: Of which only 900,000 are computed to be now under cultivation: this reduces the quotient to 128·5 acres per hide; and the ratio of cultivated to uncultivated land is as 7:23, taking the hide at 30 acres; and as 77:223 taking the hide at 33 acres. -----