[Footnote 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.] [Footnote 90: 'Burgum de Grentebrige pro uno Hundredo se defendebat.'--_D.B._, i. 189.] [Footnote 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.] [Footnote 92: Domesday reads 'iii.', and _Inq. Com. Cant._ 'iiii.'] [Footnote 93: I.C.C. reads 'x.'] [Footnote 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).] [Footnote 95: _Const. Hist._, i, 105.] [Footnote 96: See below, p. 87.] [Footnote 97: See also _Domesday Studies_, i, 117.] [Footnote 98: _Domesday Studies_, i, 122-30.] [Footnote 99: The fragments of the Hundred of Papworth and North Stow, which it contains, are too small to enable us to speak with certainty.] [Footnote 100: Correcting the _Inq. Com. Cant._ by adding from Domesday the royal Manors in Isleham and Fordham.] [Footnote 101: Bedford, 1881.] [Footnote 102: 'Huntedun Burg defendebat se ad geldum regis pro quarta parte de Hyrstingestan hundred pro L. hidis.'--_Domesday_, i, 203.] [Footnote 103: Adjoining Manors held by the Abbot of Ely.] [Footnote 104: I have not attempted to group these six Manors, as we have not sufficient information to warrant it. They would, however, form two groups of twenty hides each, or one of twenty-five and another of fifteen.] [Footnote 105: There are five entries relating to Catworth (fos. 205_b_, 206, 206_b_, 217_b_), which, by the addition of 11 hides (1 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 1), would bring up its assessment to 15; but as they are all credited in Domesday to other Hundreds, and as there are _two_ Catworths surveyed, I have adhered to the above figure.] [Footnote 106: _Introduction to Domesday_, i, 134. The italics are his own.] [Footnote 107: _Const. Hist._, i, 99.] [Footnote 108: This point brings further into line the towns and the rural Hundreds, through the 100-hide and the 50-hide assessments of the former. (_See_ my 'Danegeld' Essay in _Domesday Studies_.)] [Footnote 109: Edgar spoke of it as three Hundreds.]