With these types as clues we are in a position to assert that where the total assessment of a Hundred varies but slightly from a multiple of six, there must have been some slight error in one of the figures. Thus Hundreds of 35-1/2, 34-13/16 carucates, etc., may be safely assumed to have been Hundreds of 36 carucates; those of 41, 43-7/8, etc., would be of 42 carucates; those of 48-7/8, 50, etc., would be of 48 carucates. These slight discrepancies, precisely as in Lincolnshire, are accounted for by Vills of 6 or 12 carucates, being entered as of 5-7/8, 5-13/16, 6-3/4, or 11-7/8, 13, etc. Thus: HUNDRED OF EASTWELL _Vills_ _Carucates_ Eastwell 12 (2 + 6 + 4) Eaton 12-1/4 (3-1/4 + 9/16 + 8-7/16) Branston 12 (7-1/2 + 4-1/2) ------- 36-1/4 The most usual Leicestershire Hundreds are those of 36, 42, and 48 carucates, which, be it observed, would be described in the language of the Lindsey Survey as 'Wapentakes' of 3, 3-1/2, and 4 'Hundreds' respectively. The name may be different: the thing is the same.[152] It will have been seen by this Survey that the 'Vills', single or grouped, were assessed precisely as in Cambridgeshire, save that there the assessment was reckoned in fives and tens, while here it was in sixes and twelves. VIII. THE LEICESTERSHIRE 'HIDA' The case of Leicestershire introduces us to a very curious point. Leicestershire is not one of those counties to which the singular formula that I discussed above refers. This suggests that it was not arranged in 'Hundreds' of twelve carucates. The above Survey confirms this, for it shows us Hundreds resembling in character those found in the hidated districts. But although the twelve-carucate unit of the 'Hundred' is not found in Leicestershire, we do find in it a group-unit, and that unit is the _hida_. Just as we have seen the Hundred used in two wholly different senses, so also was the 'hida'. The quite peculiar way in which 'hida' occurs in Leicestershire (which was not a hidated but carucated district) completely baffled Mr Eyton, and was misunderstood by Mr Pell.[153] Both writers failed to observe not only that the use of 'hida' is here of a peculiar character, but also that the normal 'hida' of Domesday (from which they could not emancipate themselves) would be quite out of place in this carucated district. The first point to grasp is that this Leicestershire 'hida' was a term which, locally I mean, explained itself. It is used at least a dozen times in the Survey of Leicestershire without any mention of its contents. Those contents must have been, therefore, familiar and fixed. But what were those contents? Three incidental notices enable us to determine them: 231 (_a_), 2: 'Ibi est i. hida et iiii^{ta.} pars i. hidæ. Ibi sunt xxii. car' terræ et dimidia.' 236 (_a_), 1: 'II. partes unius hidæ, id est xii. car' terræ.'