24 Domesday and Feudal Statistics 



so devastated the whole country that the value was 

 greatly reduced twenty years after his landing, 

 would not be supported by evidence, for the hides 

 and valuits of 1065 roughly answer to those of 

 circa 1150 and 1086 respectively in the com- 

 parisons as made ; setting aside the comparison of 

 like with like, the only table really satisfactory is 

 Population that of Population by Teams, where (as should be 

 Teams* 5 expected) a clear relation is established. 



Except in the first table (5 divisions), the com- 

 parisons are slender; the remaining 10 divisions 

 appear in Tables II. (3 divisions) and III. 

 (7 divisions); the tables having been grouped by 

 comparative results: Density (Table II.) gives the 

 best yield, and the supposed relationship (1085) 

 of Hides, Teams, Values, and Valuits (1065) is 

 slender demonstrated to have but slight grounds of support, 

 from'other f r plainly the results from these items will not 

 Factors compare with the very artificial one of Acres by 

 Recorded Population. In a country like England, 

 both of 1085 and 1900, there can be no very near 

 kinship between the acres and population county 

 for county, as plainly the flat agricultural districts 

 will be more densely inhabited than the hills and 

 moors; hence a fortiori as to the remaining 

 9 divisions which yield an inferior result. The 

 areas of counties in Maitland's D. B. and Beyond 

 are from the Agricultural Returns, 1895, anc ^ n ^ s 

 results from them used here, though the figures in 

 the Main Statistical Table in this book are from 

 the Census Table, 1891 the difference is not 

 great. 



