STATISTICAL MATERIAL FOR PLOUGHLEY HUNDRED

STATISTICAL MATERIAL FOR THE VILLAGES AND HAMLETS OF PLOUGHLEY HUNDRED 1086–1768

ESTATES AND TENANTS IN 1086 AND 1279

The following table shows the number of Domesday estates and the number of recorded persons working on them in 1086; and the number of manors and lesser estates in 1279 with the numbers of free and unfree tenants attached to them.

Holders of burgagii are recorded only at Middleton Stoney, and the men known to have been 'living on the market' at Bicester were not recorded. (fn. 15) The villein tenants included nativi, servi, cottagarii, cottarii, and coterelli. Generally speaking nativi and servi appear to be alternative words for the class of villeins who held a virgate or half-virgate. At Stoke Lyne, for instance, where there were two manors, the virgaters were listed as nativi on one and as servi on the other, and their recorded services were the same in each case. (fn. 16) The other three classes of tenants have all been tabulated as cottars. Though there may have been some differences in status, the survey makes no clear distinction between them. At Wretchwick the list of those holding either cotlands or cottages is headed coterelli: the cotlander owes services and a higher rent than the cottager, who has no recorded services. (fn. 17) At Stoke those described as cottagarii are distinguished from the holders of cotlands, who mostly owed the same services as the half-virgaters, but paid 6s. rent instead of 5s. At Heyford the nativi all held cotlands. (fn. 18) In other places where tenants of cotlands are listed with the nativi or servi it appears to be merely a case of the lack of precision which often characterizes the survey. (fn. 19) Lillingstone Lovell and a few other villages had free cottars. (fn. 20)

The survey of 1279 for this hundred gives a very detailed tenurial picture compared with that of many other hundreds, but evidence from other sources shows that in at least some cases it is unreliable. (fn. 21) It contains also a number of scribal errors, such as omissions and duplications of names, which make any accurate reconstruction of the system of tenure difficult. (fn. 22)

As a basis for the assessment of population in 1086 or 1279 the preceding figures are unsatisfactory. The difficulties with regard to the interpretation of the Domesday figures are well known and there is no reason to suppose that they were any more accurate than those of 1279. Both surveys recorded only a few of the existing priests, and even if it is assumed that most tenants were heads of families, the size of the average family can only be conjectured and there is no clue to the number of household servants, which other medieval sources indicate to have been generally numerous. Moreover, in the preceding table a few free tenants are duplicated, as they held more than one holding, either in the same or in different parishes, and there are a few villeins who also held cottages and have therefore been reckoned twice over in the list of tenants. (fn. 23)

HONORS AND KNIGHTS' FEES (MID-13th CENTURY)

VILLAGE TAX ASSESSMENTS AND NUMBERS OF CONTRIBUTORS 1306–1523

CLERICAL AND SECULAR RETURNS FROM 1662 TO 1811

In the following table the first column shows the total number of householders (including those exempted) returned for each village and hamlet in Ploughley hundred in accordance with the Act of 1662 for establishing an additional revenue. (fn. 40) These returns are the fullest of any made for the Oxfordshire hearth taxes. In spite of intervening attempts to tighten up the administration, the figures returned in 1665 show a decline of from 30 to 50 per cent. (fn. 41) The second column gives the number of conformists, papists, and non-conformists of sixteen years and over returned by the incumbents in 1676 in response to Archbishop Compton's request. (fn. 42) The third and fourth columns contain the clerical answers made in 1738 and 1768 to the bishop's question 'What number of houses doth it [i.e. the parish] comprehend?' The numbers of houses and families recorded in the official census of 1811 are listed in the fifth and sixth columns.

In cases where there is other contemporary evidence for assessing the number of families in a village, it has been found that the Oxfordshire hearth-tax figures give far fewer. (fn. 65) This is not surprising as the tax is known to have been very unpopular, to have been 'much obstructed for want of true and just accounts' from the occupiers of houses, and by the 'negligence' of the constables. (fn. 66)

The accuracy of the clerical returns was likely to vary in proportion to the degree of conscientiousness possessed by the various incumbents. In the 18th-century returns the frequency of the appearance of round numbers and the use of terms such as 'about' or 'upwards of' certainly suggests that the returns were only approximately accurate.

Footnotes