[87] Antiquary, June 1882, p. 242. See also Domesday Studies, vol. i, p. 119.
[88] The I.C.C. omits the king's Manor (7¼ hides, 8 ploughlands).
[89] I do not here discuss the cause of the reduction. Indeed, this would be hard to discover; for the original assessment was distinctly low, whether we compare it with the aggregate of ploughlands or of valuation. It is true that the total of valets which had been £235 0s 4d T.R.E., and was £203 8s 4d at the time of the survey, had fallen so low as £161 18s 4d, when the grantees received their lands, but, even at the lowest figure, the assessment was still moderate.
[90] 'Burgum de Grentebrige pro uno Hundredo se defendebat.'—D.B., i. 189.
[91] This figure is arrived at by adding to the 'hida et dimidia et xx. acræ' of Domesday, and the Inq. Com. Cant. the 'viii. hidæ et xl. acræ', which the latter omits, but which Domesday records. The sum is exactly ten hides.
[92] Domesday reads 'iii.', and Inq. Com. Cant. 'iiii.'
[93] I.C.C. reads 'x.'
[94] 'Per concessionem ejusdem regis' (Domesday). Compare also the five hides knocked off the assessment of Alveston by Henry I, and another ten hides off that of Hampton (Domesday Studies, pp. 99, 103).
[95] Const. Hist., i, 105.