130 
and, lastly, its estimated yearly value, both T. R. E., and now in 
1086. If you will take Eyton’s admirable book in hand you will 
see how the Commissioners carried this out, giving in order, the 
name of the manor, its Saxon owner T. R. E., the present tenant 
in capite or holder direct from the King, his undertenant in fee, 
if any—then the hidage. 
The Geld List conclusively explains this hidage, and shows 
that it was a Sheriff’s assessment account ; that the hide was a 
fiscal money value of 6s., divided by 4 to form virgates, by 16 to 
form ferlings, and by 48 to form acres. That is to say, of a very 
precise character down to 14d. If you look through the Bath 
Chartulary you will find that “mansa” is the Saxon equivalent 
for ‘‘hida.” In Norman French manse is a farm, or a hide of 
land. Bosworth’s Anglo Saxon Dictionary makes mancus or 
manca, the equivalent for 6 shillings. 
Pass on to the next column giving the number of plough-lands. 
Eyton is right in estimating the plough-land at 120 acres, and, I 
think, the number of plough-lands should include the whole area 
of the manor, The word “hide” having been taken to represent 
a fiscal value, it became necessary to find a new name for the area 
which hide had hitherto represented. That name is caruce 
(terra) or plough-land. But this column only supplies multiples 
of half a plough-land, that is, of 60 acres. In other words the 
estimate is only approximate, and neglects fractional parts of 
60 acres. Either, then, each manor must have contained 
multiples of 60 acres, or the Domesday measure of its area may 
be deficient by almost 60 acres. This, I think, is the simple 
explanation, and involves in a Hundred an average loss say of 
one fourth. 
We are now prepared to enter on the 1084 Sheriff’s account 
for this Hundred. It will be found f. 76, p. 68. Exon 
Domesday. 

