fo. 107 (a) 2: "Barentona pro x. hidis se defendit."

fo. 108 (a) 2: "Oreuuella pro. iiii. hidis se defendit.”

This last example is, perhaps, the most remarkable of all in the accuracy with which the virgates and their fractions, by the help of the five acres, combine to give us the required total.

But, it may be asked, how far does the Inquisitio, as a whole, confirm this conclusion? In order to reply to this enquiry, I have analysed every one of the Manors it contains. The result of that analysis has been that of the ninety-four townships which the fragment includes (not counting "Matingeleia," of which the account is imperfect) there are only fifteen cases in which my calculation

78 Here, again, Domesday is in error, reading two and a half virgates, where the I.C.C. has one and a half.

79 These two entries are by a blunder in the I.C.C. (see above, p. 12) erroneously rolled into one (of virgate). In this case it is Domesday Book which corrects the I.C.C., and preserves for us the right version.

Exceptions only Apparent

41 does not hold good, that is to say, in which the constituents as given do not equal the total assessment when we add them up on the above hypothesis of thirty acres to the virgate, and four virgates to the hide. This number, however, would be considerably larger if we had to work only from D.B., or only from the I.C.C. But as each of these, in several cases, corrects the errors of the other, the total of apparent exceptions is thus reduced. Hence I contend that if we could only get a really perfect return, the remaining apparent exceptions would largely disappear.

In some of these exceptions the discrepancy is trifling. Thus, at Triplow, we have two acres in excess of the 8 hide assessment-a discrepancy of At "Burch and Weslai" we have a deficit of 5 acres on 10 hides, that is At "Scelforda" the figures of D.B. gives us an excess of 7 acres on the 20 hide assessment, that is I.C.C. figures make the excess to be 12 acres.

The

Another class of exceptions is accounted for by the tendency of both texts, as we have seen, to enter a virgate too much or too little, and to confuse virgates with their fractions. Thus at "Litlingetona" our figures give us a virgate in excess of the assessment, while at "Bercheham "80 and again at "Witlesforde" we have a virgate short of the amount. At "Herlestona" we have, we have, similarly, half a virgate too much, and "Kingestona" half a virgate (15 acres) too little. Lastly, at "Wicheham," the aggregate of the figures is a quarter of a virgate short of the amount.

A third class of these exceptions is due to the frequent omission in the I.C.C. of estates belonging to the king. Thus at Wilbraham it records an assessment of ten hides represented only by two estates of four hides apiece. But on turning to Domesday (i. 1896) we read :-" Wilborham dominica villa regis est. Ibi ii. hide." The missing factor is thus supplied, and the apparent discrepancy disposed of.

80 The I.C.C., which is very corrupt in its account of this township, gives us a deficiency of 1 hide of virgates.

So, too, at "Haslingefelda" (Haslingfield), where the I.C.C. accounts only for twelve hides and three virgates out of an assessment of twenty hides. Domesday here, again, supplies the missing factor in a royal Manor of seven hides and a virgate. We thus obtain, instead of an exception, a fresh illustration of our rule.

Domesday omits altogether, so far as I can find, the holding of Guy, an omission which would upset the whole calculation. But, in the case of Isleham, the apparent exception is due to the I.C.C., not to Domesday Book. Its assessment, in that document, is given as four hides. But the aggregate of its Manors, as there recorded, give us an assessment of three hides plus eighty acres. Here any one who was rash enough to argue from a single instance (as Mr. Eyton and Mr. Pell were too apt to do) might jump at the conclusion that the hide must here have been of eighty acres. Yet Domesday enables us to collect all the constituents of the "Vill," among them the king's estate, here again omitted. The real figures, therefore, were these :—

Allowance for Error in the MSS.

43

Isleham, then, was a normal ten-hide township, and confirms, instead of rebutting, the rule that the geldable hide contained 120 acres.81

The remaining exceptions are "Somm[er]tona" partly explained by the omission of terra Regis, "Bathburgeham (Babraham) with 21 acres short on an assessment of seven hides, and Carlton, which fitly closes the list of these exceptions. For here, on an assessment of ten hides, we have, according to the I.C.C., 27 acres short, but according to D.B., 53 (27+20+6}). A demonstrable blunder in Domesday Book and a discrepancy between it and the I.C.C. are responsible, together, for the difference.8% Thus we see how wide a margin should be allowed, in these calculations, for textual error.

82

It is necessary to remember that there were three processes, in each one of which error might arise :

I. In the actual survey and its returns, "by reason of the insignificance of some estates, or by reason of forgetfulness, or inaccuracy, or confusion, or doubt on the part of local jurors and witnesses, or of the clerks who indited their statements."

"88

II. In the collection and transmission of the returns, by the loss of "a leaflet or rotulet of the commissioners' work." 84

III. In the transcription of the returns into D.B., or into the I.C.C., plus, in the case of the former, the rearrangement and abridgment of the materials.

81 The apparent exception was caused by the Ing. Com. Cant. reading "pro iiii. hidis," and omitting the words "xl. acras minus," the true assessment of the Manor, when the king's estate was excluded, being "three hides less forty acres."

82 The blunder consists in treating 6 (geld) acres as part of the Countess Judith's estate, whereas they had been reckoned separately; the discrepancy is due to D.B. reading "ii. acras," where the I.C.C. has 'xxii. acras."

83 Eyton's Notes on Domesday, p. 12.

84 Ibid., p. 13.

We may now quit this part of our subject, claiming to have settled, by the aid of the I.C.C., a problem which has puzzled generations of antiquaries, namely: "What was the Domesday hide?" 85 We have shown that it denoted a measure of assessment composed of four (geld) virgates or a hundred and twenty (geld) acres. What relation, if any, it bore to area and to value is a question wholly distinct, on which the next portion of this essay may throw quite a new light.

VI. THE FIVE-HIDE UNIT.

It is one of the distinctive and valuable features of the Inq. Com. Cant. that it gives us the total assessment for each Vill of which it treats before recording the several Manors of which that Vill is composed, the aggregate assesments of which Manors make up the total assessment for the Vill. In this feature we have something which Domesday does not contain, and which (independently of its checking value), gives us at once those Vill assessments which we could only extract from the Domesday entries by great labour and with much uncertainty. Let us see then if these Vill assessments lead us to any new conclusions on the whole assessment system.

The first point that we notice is this. The five-hide unit is brought into startling prominence. No careful student, one would suppose, of Domesday, can have failed to be struck by the singular number of Manors in the hidated portion of the realm, which are assessed in terms of the fivehide unit, that is to say, which are entered as of five hides

85 Dr. Stubbs' remarks " on the vexed question of the extent of the hide" will be found in a note to his Const. Hist., vol. i. (1874), p. 74. Mr. Eyton (Key to Domesday, p. 14) asserted that the Domesday hide contained 48 geld-acres. Prof. Earle in his Land Charters and Saxonic Documents (1888) reviews the question of the hide, but leaves it undetermined (pp. lii.--liii., 457--461).

36 See above, p. 17.