| Hundred of Wetherley | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 68-83) | ||||||
| Hides | Ploughlands | |||||
| Comberton | 6 |  | 20 | 7 | | 32 |
| Barton | 7 | 12 | ||||
| Grantchester | 7 | 13 | ||||
| Haslingfield | 20 | 22[88] | ||||
| Harlton | 5 | | 20 | 7 | | 27⅞ |
| Barrington | 10 | 15⅜ | ||||
| Shepreth | 5 | 5½ | ||||
| Ordwell | 4 |  | 20 | 55⁄16 | | 293⁄16 |
| Wratworth | 4 | 5⅜ | ||||
| Whitwell | 4 | 5 | ||||
| Wimpole | 4 | 5 | ||||
| Arrington | 4 | 8½ | ||||
| — | —— | |||||
| 80 | 1111⁄16 | |||||
It is important to observe that, though the grouping is my own, the order of the Vills is exactly that which is given in the Inq. Com. Cant., and by that order the grouping is confirmed. Note also how, without such grouping, we should have but a chaos of Vills, whereas, by its aid, from this chaos is evolved perfect symmetry. Lastly, glance at the four 'quarters' and see how variously they are subdivided.
Advancing still on the same lines, we approach the very remarkable case of the adjoining Hundred of Long Stow.
Now it is necessary to explain at the outset that, the Inq. Com. Cant. being here imperfect, it only gives us the first two of the above 'quarters', its evidence ending with Bourne. But, by good fortune, it is possible to reconstruct from Domesday alone the remaining half of the Hundred, and thus to obtain the most valuable example of the system we are engaged in tracing that we have yet met with. The grouping I have adopted is based on the figures, but in some cases it is obvious from the map: Eltisley and Croxton, for instance, which form a ten-hide block, occupy a projecting portion of the county all to themselves, while Caxton adjoins them.
| Hundred of Longstow | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 83-89) | ||||||||
| Hides | Ploughlands | |||||||
| Eversden | 8⅓ | | 25 | 13⅜ | | 381⁄16 | ||
| Kingston | 8⅓ | 89⁄16 | ||||||
| Toft and Hardwick | 8⅓ | 16⅛ | ||||||
| Grandsen | 5 |  | 25 | 9 | | 32½ | ||
| Bourne | 20 | [23 | ||||||
| Gamlingay | 20 | | 25 | |||||
| Hatley | 4¼ | | 5 | |||||
| [Unnamed] | ¾ | |||||||
| Croxton | 7 | | 10 |  | 25 | |||
| Eltisley | 3 | |||||||
| Caxton | 10 | |||||||
| Caldecot | 1¾ | | 5 | |||||
| Long Stow | 3¼ | |||||||
| —— | ||||||||
| 100 | ||||||||
Several points are here noticeable. Observe, in the first place, how the twenty-five hide 'quarter' which heads the list is divided into three equal blocks of 8⅓ hides each, just as we found in Wetherley Hundred that one of the twenty-hide 'quarters' was divided into five equal blocks of four hides each. In these cases the same principle of simple equal division was applied to the quarter hundred as we saw applied to the whole hundred in the first two cases we studied—the Hundreds of Staines and of Radfield. Notice next how the two Vills of Toft and Hardwick, which are separately surveyed in Domesday under their respective names, are found from the Inq. Com. Cant. to have combined (under the name of 'Toft') in a block of 8⅓ hides. Lastly, it should not be overlooked that the ¾ hide not localized in Domesday fits in exactly with Hatley to complete its five hides.
The chase now becomes exciting: it can no longer be doubted that we are well on the track of a vast system of artificial hidation, of which the very existence has been hitherto unsuspected. Let us see what further light can be thrown by research on its nature.
On looking back at the evidence I have collected, one is struck, surely, by the thought that the system of assessment seems to work, not as is supposed, up from, but down to the Manor. Can it be possible that what was really assessed was not the Manor, nor even the Vill, but the Hundred as a whole? This view is so revolutionary, so subversive of all that has ever been written on the subject, that it cannot be answered off-hand. We will therefore begin by examining the case of the Hundred of Erningford, which introduces us to a further phenomenon, the reduction of assessment.
| Hundred of Erningford | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| (Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 51-68) | |||
| Hides | |||
| T.R.E. | T.R.W. | Ploughlands | |
| Morden (1) | 10 | 8 | 20 |
| Tadlow | 5 | 4 | 10½ |
| Morden (2) | 5 | 4 | 10¾ |
| Clopton | 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Hatley | 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Croydon | 10 | 8 | 11½ |
| Wendy | 5 | 4 | 6¾ |
| Shingay | 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Litlington | 5 | 4 | 11 |
| Abington | 5 | 4 | 3¾ |
| Bassingburne | 10 | 8 | 22 |
| Whaddon | 10 | 8 | 14¾ |
| Meldreth | 10 | 8 | 20½ |
| Melbourne | 10 | 8 | 19½ |
| –— | — | ——— | |
| 100 | 80 | 171 | |
Here we have, as in the last instance, a Hundred of exactly a hundred hides (assessment). But we are confronted with a new problem, that of reduction. Before we form any conclusions, it is important to explain that this problem can only be studied by the aid of the Inq. Com. Cant., for the evidence both of Domesday and of the Inq. El. is distinctly misleading. Reduction of assessment is only recorded in these two documents when the Manor is identical with the Vill. In cases where the Vill contains two or more Manors, the Vill is not entered as a whole, and consequently the reduction on the assessment of that Vill as a whole is not entered at all.