If we take the modern Wapentake of Dickering (the first on Canon Taylor's list) and examine its three Domesday Hundreds of Turbar, Hunton, and Burton, we obtain these results:[168]
| Turbar Hundred | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Hundemanebi | 24 | ||
| Ricstorp, Mustone, Scloftone, and Neuton | 18 | ||
| Flotemanebi | 6 | ||
| Muston and Neuton | 6 | ||
| Fordun and Ledemare | 6 | ||
| Burton, Fulcheton, and Chelc | 30 | ||
| Chelc (2), Ergone, Bringeham, Estolf, Fodstone, and Chemelinge | 19 | ||
| Nadfartone | 23¾ | ||
| Pochetorp | 6 | ||
| Helmeswelle and Gartune | 44 | ||
| Hunton Hundred | |||
| Flaneburg and Siwardbi | 24½ | ||
| Marton | 9 | ||
| Bredinton | 18 | ||
| Hilgertorp | 6 | ||
| Wivlestorp and Basingebi | 12 | ||
| Frestintorp | 9 |  | 29½ |
| Eleburne | ½ | ||
| Eston | 6 | ||
| Bovintorp | 14 | ||
| Gerendele | 12 | ||
| Ricton, Benton and Spetton | 24 | ||
| Bocheton | 12 | ||
| Fleuston | 14 |  | 27 |
| Stactone | 6 | ||
| Foxhole | 7 | ||
| Burton Hundred | |||
| Burton | 12 | ||
| Grenzmore (4+2) | 6 | ||
| Arpen (4+8) | 12 | ||
| Chillon (30+11+7) | 48 | ||
| Roreston (9+3) | 12 | ||
| Logetorp (1½+5½) | 7 |  | 36 |
| Thirnon | 7 | ||
| Ascheltorp (4+2) | 6 | ||
| Torp | 3 | ||
| Cherendebi | 13 | ||
| Caretorp (5+4+3) | 12 | ||
| Rodestain (8+8+8) | 24 | ||
| Twenc | 17¼ | ||
| Suauetorp | 9 | ||
| Fornetorp (4+14) | 18 | ||
| Butruid | 12 | ||
| Langetou (9+6) | 15 | | 42 |
| Buitorp | 5 | ||
| Bruneton | 3 | ||
| Galmeton | 8 | ||
| Binneton | 6 | ||
| Widlaueston | 5 | ||
The evidence of this last Hundred is so overwhelming that it cannot be gainsaid.[169]
I claim, therefore, that my theory holds good even in Canon Taylor's stronghold, but I do so without venturing to dispute the accuracy of his own. How far they can be reconciled I leave to others to decide.
There are certain difficulties, however, which his brilliant suggestion must raise. It is the essence of his theory that in a two-field Manor the ploughland of 160 acres (half fallow) was assessed at one 'carucata terræ', while in the three-field Manor the ploughland of 180 acres (a third fallow) was assessed at two. This would be an obvious and gross injustice. Again, remembering that, according to the Canon, the proportion of 'carucatæ' to ploughlands should be either 2 to 1 or 1 to 1, what are we to make of such figures as these, taken at a venture from a page of the Leicestershire Survey (232a, 1):
| Carucatæ | Ploughlands | Carucata | Ploughlands |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 12 | 8 |
| 1 | ½ | 11⅛ | 7 |
| 2 | 1 | 9 | 4 |
| 5⅝ | 4 | 7 | 6 |
| 2 | 1 | 6 | 5 |
| 2⅝ | 4 | 2 | 4 |
| 1 | 1 | 10 | 7 |
| 6 | 4 | 9 | 6 |
| 8⅞ | 6 | ⅝ | ½ |
| ½ | ½ | 6 | 4 (thrice) |
| 28 | 22 | 4⅞ | 3 |
It is certainly difficult to discover any regular or consistent assessment in a system where the ploughland was represented by anything from ½ carucata to 2¼ carucatæ. There is, however, in so many cases an approximation to an assessment of three carucatæ for two ploughlands, that there seems to have been some underlying idea, if we could only trace it out. But for this there is needed a special investigation of all the carucated counties, a work of great labour and requiring local co-operation. If we could have tables for each county, arranged Hundred by Hundred and Vill by Vill, showing in parallel columns the ploughland and the carucatæ ad geldum, we could then, and only then, venture to speak positively. Till that is accomplished we are not in a position to explain how a system of assessment, based on actual area, could result in aggregate assessments uniformly expressed in terms of the six-carucate unit.
XI. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
In seeking a clue to the origin of that artificial assessment, of which the traces, whether more or less apparent, linger on the pages of Domesday, I propose to exclude the carucated district, because we require, as I have said, more complete evidence as to the system pursued within it, and because, being associated with the settlement of the Danes it represents a later introduction, while the very name 'carucate', as I observed in Domesday Studies, has, unlike the mysterious 'hide', an obvious connection with the ploughland. Confining ourselves to the district assessed in terms of the 'hide', we seek to learn the origin of the system by which, as I contend, it was divided for the purpose of taxation into blocks, each of which was expressed in terms of the five-hide unit.