_Hides_ _Ploughlands_ Comberton 6} 7 } Barton 7} 20 12 } 32 Grantchester 7} 13 } Haslingfield 20 22[88] Harlton 5} 7 } Barrington 10} 20 15-3/8 } 27-7/8 Shepreth 5} 5-1/2 } Ordwell 4} 5-5/16} Wratworth 4} 5-3/8 } Whitwell 4} 20 5 } 29-3/16 Wimpole 4} 5 } Arrington 4} 8-1/2 } -- -------- 80 111-1/16 It is important to observe that, though the grouping is my own, the _order_ of the Vills is exactly that which is given in the _Inq. Com. Cant._, and by that order the grouping is confirmed. Note also how, without such grouping, we should have but a chaos of Vills, whereas, by its aid, from this chaos is evolved perfect symmetry. Lastly, glance at the four 'quarters' and see how variously they are subdivided. Advancing still on the same lines, we approach the very remarkable case of the adjoining Hundred of Long Stow. Now it is necessary to explain at the outset that, the _Inq. Com. Cant._ being here imperfect, it only gives us the first two of the above 'quarters', its evidence ending with Bourne. But, by good fortune, it is possible to reconstruct from Domesday alone the remaining half of the Hundred, and thus to obtain the most valuable example of the system we are engaged in tracing that we have yet met with. The grouping I have adopted is based on the figures, but in some cases it is obvious from the map: Eltisley and Croxton, for instance, which form a ten-hide block, occupy a projecting portion of the county all to themselves, while Caxton adjoins them. HUNDRED OF LONGSTOW (_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 83-89) _Hides_ _Ploughlands_ Eversden 8-1/3} 13-3/8 } Kingston 8-1/3} 25 8-9/16 } 38-1/16 Toft and Hardwick 8-1/3} 16-1/8 } Grandsen 5 } 25 9 } Bourne 20 } [23 } 32-1/2 Gamlingay 20} } Hatley 4-1/4} 5} 25 [Unnamed] 3/4} }