{ 1 1 1 { 5 0 { 1/2 7-1/2 1 10{ 4-1/2 0 5{ 3 8 3 { 1/2 0 { 1/2 ------------- ------------- --------------- 15 0 20 0 20 0 I now give three illustrations of slight discrepancies: _Streatley_ _Sutton_ _Eaton Socon_ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ 1 0 { 0 3 20 0 4 1 { 1 0 6 3 4-1/3 0 5{ 1-1/2 0 0 1-1/2 0 2/3 { 1/2 0 0 1/2 0 2/3 { 0 3-1/2 9 1 { 0 1-1/2 0 5-1/2 2 0 2 1/2 0 3 0 1 1/2 0 0 1-1/2 1 0 ------------- ------------- ------------- 9 3-2/3 9 0-1/2 40 1 In the first case there is a deficiency of 1/120, and in the second of 7/80, while in the third we find an excess of 1/160. No one can doubt that these were really ten-hide, ten-hide, and forty-hide townships. We have to allow, in the first place, for trivial slips, and in the second for possible errors in the baffling work of identification at the present day. One can hardly doubt that if a student with the requisite local knowledge set himself to reconstruct, according to Hundreds, the Bedfordshire Domesday, he would find, as in Cambridgeshire, that even where a township was not assessed in terms of the five-hide unit, it was combined in an adjacent one in such an assessment. We will now cross the border into Huntingdonshire, and enter the great Hundred of Hurstingston. This, which may be described as a _double_ Hundred, was assessed, Domesday implies, at 200 hides. Quartering this total, on the Cambridgeshire system, we obtain fifty hides, and this quarter was the assessment allotted to the borough of Huntingdon.[102] The total assessment of the Hundred was thus accounted for: