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,. -jd. ; see table on p. 305. 282
