[Footnote 110: 'Unum hundret quod vocatur Oswaldeslaw in quo jacent ccc. hidæ.'--_D.B._, i., 172_b._] [Footnote 111: It also contained one 23-hide and two 24-hide Manors, which were once perhaps, of 25 hides. The Church of Worcester, also possessed, outside this Hundred, Manors (_inter alia_) of 20, 15, 10, and 5 hides. (_See_ below, p. 143.)] [Footnote 112: D.B., i. 175_b._] [Footnote 113: I make the aggregate 118-1/2 hides.] [Footnote 114: 'Quæ hic [Dodintret hundred] placitant et geldant et ad Hereford reddunt firmam suam.' It would have been said in Cambridgeshire that their 'wara' was in Doddentree Hundred.] [Footnote 115: Eyton's _Somerset Survey_, ii, 25.] [Footnote 116: Eyton's _Dorset Domesday_, p. 14.] [Footnote 117: I drew attention in the _Archæological Review_ (vol. 1) to a Cornish survey of 21 Ed. I. (_Testa de Nevill_, p. 204), in which every Cornish acre contains a Cornish carucate.] [Footnote 118: _Domesday Studies_, p. 172.] [Footnote 119: 'A New View of the Geldable Unit of Assessment of Domesday.' _Ibid_., pp. 227-363, 561-619.] [Footnote 120: _Archæological Review_, i, 285-95; iv, 130-40, 391.] [Footnote 121: _Ibid._, iv, 325.] [Footnote 122: A curious hint of the grouping of Vills is afforded in Oxfordshire by Adderbury and Bloxham. Domesday first gives us an assessment of 34-1/2 hides in the two, and then 15-1/2 hides in Adderbury, making in all, for the two, 50 hides, the same as Banbury.] [Footnote 123: This evidence is rendered available by the useful _Notes on the Oxfordshire Domesday_, published by the Clarendon Press in 1892.] [Footnote 124: 40 + 5 + 5.] [Footnote 125: 'Unam hidam et iii^{es.} virgatas et iii^{ciam.} partem de i. virgata.'] [Footnote 126: 'Dimidiam hidam et iii^{ciam.} partem dimidiæ hidæ.'] [Footnote 127: Lysons. So also Domesday: '_soco vero jacebat in Stains_'.] [Footnote 128: _Domesday Studies_, i. 120. See also _supra_, p. 45, and the case of Northampton, _infra_.] [Footnote 129: _Domesday_, i. 64_b._] [Footnote 130: _English Historical Review_, 1889, iv. 729.] [Footnote 131: _English Historical Review_, 1889, iv. 728-9.] [Footnote 132: _Archæological Review_, iv. 313-27.] [Footnote 133: Mr Stevenson, perhaps, is rather too severe on Canon Taylor's 'Carucate' remarks in the _New English Dictionary_. Strictly, no doubt, the Canon was mistaken, with Mr Pell, in reckoning 120 as 144 'by the English number'; but the evidence in his paper on 'the plough and the ploughland' seems to establish a practice of counting by twelve instead of ten.] [Footnote 134: _Genealogist_, N.S., vi. 160-1.] [Footnote 135: _Archæological Review_, iv. 322.]