Passing on into Northamptonshire, we come to that most curious document, which I shall discuss below (see p. [124]), and which was printed by Ellis (Introduction to Domesday, i. 187 et seq.). Ellis, however, can scarcely have read his own document, for he speaks of it as a list 'in which every Hundred is made to consist of a hundred hides'.[106] This extraordinary assertion has completely misled Dr Stubbs, who writes:
The document given by Ellis as showing that the Hundreds of Northampton each contained a hundred hides seems to be a mere attempt of an early scribe to force them into symmetry.[107]
It is greatly to be wished that some one with the requisite local knowledge should take this list in hand and work out its details thoroughly. In capable hands it should prove a record of the highest interest. For the present I will only point out that its contents are in complete harmony with the results that I obtained on the Hundred in Cambridgeshire; for it gives us Hundreds assessed at 150 (four), 100 (nine), 90 (two), 80 (four), 60 (one), and 40 (one) hides, with a small minority of odd numbers. This list throws further light on the institution of the Hundred by its recognition of 'double' and 'half' Hundreds. Note also in this connection the preference for 100-hide and fifty-hide assessments, which here amount to thirteen out of the twenty instances above, and in Cambridgeshire to four out of nine. These signs of an endeavour to force such assessments into terms of a fifty-hide unit will be dealt with below.[108]
In Hertfordshire, as indeed in other counties, there is great need for that local research which alone can identify and group the Domesday holdings. So far as single Vills are concerned, Bengeo affords a good illustration of the way in which scattered fractions work out in combination.
| H. | V. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Count Alan | 0 | 1 | |
| Hugh de Beauchamp | 6 | 0 | |
| Geoffrey de Mandeville | 3 | 1 | |
| Geoffrey de Bech |  | 5 | 1 |
| 6½ | 0 | ||
| 1 | 1½ | ||
| 0 | 5½ | ||
| 0 | 3½ | ||
| Peter de Valognes | 0 | ½ | |
| ————— | |||
| 25 | 0 | ||
If we now push on to Worcestershire, we find a striking case in the Hundred (or rather the triple Hundred[109]) of Oswaldslow. Its assessment was 300 hides;[110] and I am able to assert that of these we can account for 299, and that it contained Manors of 50, 40, 35, 25 (two), and 15 hides.[111] We have also, in this county, the case of the Hundred of Fishborough, made up to 100 hides, and remarkable for including in this total the fifteen hides at which Worcester itself was assessed. The special value of this and of the Huntingdon instances lies in its placing the assessments of a borough on all fours with the assessment of a rural Manor, as a mere factor in the assessment of a rural Hundred. By thus combining town and country it shows us that the assessments of both were part of the same general system. This is a point of great importance.
This case of the Hundred of Fishborough is, however, peculiar. The entry, which was prominently quoted by Ellis (who failed to see its true significance), is this:
In Fisseberge hundred habet æcclesia de Euesham lxv. hidæ. Ex his xii. hidæ sunt liberæ. In illo Hundredo jacent xx. hidæ de dodentreu. et xv. hidæ de Wircecestre perficiunt hundred.[112]