Robert Gernon 7 1-1/2[78] 0 Chatteris Abbey 2 0 0 Ralf 20 Walter fitz Aubrey 40 Picot 1/2 0 ----- ----- ---- 10 0 0 fo. 108 (_a_) 2: 'Oreuuella pro iiii. hidis se defendit.' _H._ _V._ _A._ Earl Roger 1 1-1/3 0 Durand 3-1/3 0 'Sigar' 1-1/3 0 Picot 3-1/4 5 Walter fitz Aubrey 1 0 Robert 1 0 Ralf 'de bans' 1/3 0[79] Chatteris Abbey 1/4 0[79] --- ------ --- 4 0 0 This last example is, perhaps, the most remarkable of all, in the accuracy with which the virgates and their fractions, by the help of the five acres, combine to give us the required total. But, it may be asked, how far does the _Inquisitio_, as a whole, confirm this conclusion? In order to reply to this inquiry, I have analysed every one of the Manors it contains. The result of that analysis has been that of the ninety-four townships which the fragment includes (not counting 'Matingeleia', of which the account is imperfect) there are only fifteen cases in which my calculation does not hold good, that is to say, in which the constituents as given do not equal the total assessment when we add them up on the above hypothesis of thirty acres to the virgate, and four virgates to the hide. This number, however, would be considerably larger if we had to work only from D.B., or only from the I.C.C. But as each of these, in several cases, corrects the errors of the other, the total of apparent exceptions is thus reduced. Hence I contend that if we could only get a really perfect return, the remaining apparent exceptions would largely disappear. In some of these exceptions the discrepancy is trifling. Thus, at Triplow, we have 2 acres in excess of the 8 hide assessment--a discrepancy of 1/480. At 'Burch and Weslai' we have a deficit of 5 acres on 10 hides, that is 1/240. At 'Scelforda' the figures of D.B. give us an excess of 7 acres on the 20 hide assessment, that is 7/2400. The I.C.C. figures make the excess to be 12 acres.