On looking back at the evidence I have collected, one is struck, surely, by the thought that the system of assessment seems to work, not as is supposed, _up from_, but _down to_ the Manor. Can it be possible that what was really assessed was not the Manor, nor even the Vill, but the Hundred as a whole? This view is so revolutionary, so subversive of all that has ever been written on the subject, that it cannot be answered off-hand. We will therefore begin by examining the case of the Hundred of Erningford, which introduces us to a further phenomenon, the _reduction_ of assessment.
Morden (1) 10 8 20 Tadlow 5 4 10-1/2 Morden (2) 5 4 10-3/4 Clopton 5 4 7 Hatley 5 4 7 Croydon 10 8 11-1/2 Wendy 5 4 6-3/4 Shingay 5 4 6 Litlington 5 4 11 Abington 5 4 3-3/4 Bassingburne 10 8 22 Whaddon 10 8 14-3/4 Meldreth 10 8 20-1/2 Melbourne 10 8 19-1/2 --- -- ------- 100 80 171
Here we have, as in the last instance, a Hundred of exactly a hundred hides (assessment). But we are confronted with a new problem, that of reduction. Before we form any conclusions, it is important to explain that this problem can only be studied by the aid of the _Inq. Com. Cant._, for the evidence both of Domesday and of the _Inq. El._ is distinctly misleading. Reduction of assessment is only recorded in these two documents when the Manor is identical with the Vill. In cases where the Vill contains two or more Manors, the Vill is not entered as a whole, and consequently the reduction on the assessment of that Vill as a whole is not entered at all.
After this explanation I pass to the case of the above Hundred, in which the evidence on the reduction is fortunately perfect. The first point to be noticed is that in four out of the five Hundreds that we have as yet examined, there is not a single instance of reduction, whereas here, on the contrary, the assessment is reduced in every Vill throughout the Hundred. That is to say, the reduction is _conterminous with the Hundred_. Cross its border into the Hundred of Wetherley, or of Triplow, and in neither district will you find a trace of reduction. Observe next that the reduction is _uniform_ throughout the whole, being 20 per cent in every instance. Now what is the inevitable conclusion from the _data_ thus afforded? Obviously that the reduction was made on the assessment of the Hundred _as a whole_, and that this reduction was distributed among its several Vills _pro rata_.[89] Further research confirms the conclusion that these reductions were systematically made on _Hundreds_, not on Vills. There is a well defined belt, or rather crescent, of Hundreds, in all of which the assessment is reduced. They follow one another on the map in this order: Erningford, Long Stow, Papworth, North Stow, Staplehow, and Cheveley. Within this crescent there lies a compact block of Hundreds, in no one of which has a single assessment been reduced. They are Triplow, Wetherley (? Cambridge[90]), Flendish, Staines, Radfield, Chilford and Whittlesford. Beyond the crescent there lie 'the two Hundreds of Ely', in which, so far as our evidence goes, there would seem to have been similarly no reduction. As the two horns of the crescent, so to speak, are the Hundreds of Erningford and Cheveley, we will now glance at the latter, and compare the evidence of the two.