A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE 



that the question relative to the number of ploughs in King Edward's time 

 was only put to the jurors in those counties in which their answers are 

 reported in the completed survey. On the other hand, if we remember the 

 liberty which the Domesday scribes allowed themselves in rejecting matters 

 which they considered to be of secondary importance, we shall perhaps come 

 to the conclusion that the inquiry about potential plough-teams was as a 

 general rule held to produce sufficient information about the relation of 

 assessment to agricultural fact, so that the statements about the plough-teams 

 of King Edward's time might be retained or thrown out at will in the com- 

 pilation of Domesday Book. In this way we shall at least account for the 

 manner in which the formula appears in the portion of the survey with which 

 we are concerned, for although there is no Leicestershire entry in which we 

 are given both an estimate of the number of possible ploughs and also a 

 statement of the actual number existing before the Conquest, yet in the three 

 Northamptonshire entries to which reference has been made both formulas 

 are combined, and also there are cases in Leicestershire itself where, in two ' 

 separate entries relating to the same vill, one will give the number of team- 

 lands and the other the number of pre-Conquest teams. 11 For instance, with 

 regard to Guy de Craon's manor in Sproxton, which is entered on folio 235, 

 we read, ' there is land for three ploughs,' while in the case of the Countess 

 Judith's manor in the same vill, surveyed on folio 236^, we are simply told 

 that ' eight ploughs were there.' We may conclude, therefore, in the first 

 place, that in entries of this latter kind we are given a simple estimate of the 

 number of real ploughs at work on a given manor in King Edward's time ; l2 

 and, secondly, that the singular alternation in the course of the survey of 

 Leicestershire between this formula and the vaguer statement, ' there island for 

 x ploughs,' has no deeper cause than the personal fancy of the Domesday scribe. 

 This being the case, it becomes worth our while to consider briefly the 

 relation between the number of ploughs before the Conquest, the number at 

 the time of the survey, and the value of the estate at (presumably) these two 

 periods. And here we are met at once by a very curious fact, for while the 

 value of land in rural Leicestershire had, according to the figures given in 

 Domesday, almost exactly doubled ls during the Conqueror's reign, yet on 

 manor after manor there were fewer ploughs at work in 1086 than had 

 been the case in 1068. We may give a few instances in point in tabular 

 form : 



yjjj Ploughs Demesne Villeins' 'Valuit' 'Valet' 



T.R.E. Ploughs Ploughs. s. d. ,. d. 



Coston . ..io ij 7 200 700 



Bottesford 25 5 16 12 o 15 o o 



Slawston 3 i i 060 i o o 



Gilmorton ..9 2 7 oioo 200 



Shenton ...5 I 2 oio 200 



Kilworth ..io 3 5 200 300 



Ragdale ...6 i i 0114 100 



Luddington ..12 2 4 050 100 



Ullesthorpe 6 2 3 o io o I io o 



Scalford. . .12 ij 6 oioo 300 



It is therefore evident that no distinction in this matter can have been made in the questions put to 

 the jurors of different wapentakes ; see Dom. Bk. and Beyond, 421. 



' See V. C. H. Northants, i, 269. 414 7,. Io </. to 827 4,. -j\d. ; see table on p. 305. 



282 



