In some of these exceptions the discrepancy is trifling. Thus, at Triplow, we have 2 acres in excess of the 8 hide assessment—a discrepancy of 1⁄240. At 'Burch and Weslai' we have a deficit of 5 acres on 10 hides, that is 1⁄240. At 'Scelforda' the figures of D.B. give us an excess of 7 acres on the 20 hide assessment, that is 7⁄2400. The I.C.C. figures make the excess to be 12 acres.
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, 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 10 hides represented only by two estates of four hides apiece. But on turning to Domesday (i. 189 b) we read: 'Wilborham dominica villa regis est. Ibi ii. hidæ.' The missing factor is thus supplied, and the apparent discrepancy disposed of. 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.
Haslingfield
| H. | V. | A. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rex | 7 | 1 | |
| Picot | 4 | 3 | |
| Count Alan | 1 | ½ | |
| The same | ½ | ||
| Geoffrey de Mandeville | 5 | ||
| Guy de Raimberccurt | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Count Alan | 12 | ||
| —— | —— | —— | |
| 20 | 0 | 0 |
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, gives 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:
| H. | V. | A. | D.B. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The King | 6 | 0 | 40 | i. 189 b. |
| Bishop of Rochester | 1½ | 0 | 20 | i. 190 b. |
| Hugh de Port | 1½ | 0 | 20 | i. 199 a. |
| Earl Alan | 40 | i. 195 b. | ||
| —— | —— | —— | ||
| 10 | 0 | 0 |
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 of an assessment of 7 hides, and Carlton, which fitly closes the list of these exceptions. For here, on an assessment of 10 hides, we have, according to the I.C.C., 27 acres short, but, according to D.B., 53½ (27 + 20 + 6½). A demonstrable blunder in Domesday Book and a discrepancy between it and the I.C.C. are responsible, together, for the difference.[82] Thus we see how wide a margin should be allowed, in these calculations, for textual error.