The borough as a Domesday Book form has been separately analysed because of the special place that the compilers assigned to it. But it would be a mistake to examine its functions without reference to the county of which it was a part. As we have already seen, despite the manifest difference in context, the legal form of relationships, along with the customs that informed them, were very similar to those found in the large rural sokes. In its essentials, the borough was a specialised royal manor. Its role, however, was distinctive. It is not possible, and probably not desirable, to define a borough for no one feature, or set of features, is common to all urban settlements.[1] But certain characteristics can usually be identified in the county borough.[2] In origin, one of its most basic roles was to serve as a military centre. As such, it had a territory from which it drew resources for its maintenance and which, in return, it defended. This aspect of the borough was never entirely lost, but from the very beginning it was supplemented by economic and administrative functions.[3] The whole system of royal government was based upon the shire and its subdivisions, and the county town was its natural centre. The borough was par excellence royal, and the king's interests in minting coin and tolls was concentrated within it. In the tenth century attempts were even made to confine all commercial exchange to the borough to prevent the sale of stolen goods.[4]  Because  of  these  very  functions,  the borough cannot be understood without examining its context.

            Nottingham, more than most, was closely identified with its shire. As a county borough, it was unusual in being quite so intimately related to royal authority in the late eleventh century. The influence of the king, and the control that he exercised, suggest that the town was more than usually demesnal in character. Moreover, the concentration of the thanes' lands within its vicinity, whether organised through the earl's estate or as king's thanes, reveals a remarkable concern with the defence of the borough. The system, or its survival, is probably unparalleled in the North, unless the 84 carucates attached to the city of York served a similar function.[5] Royal power was not, however, confined to the county town. In the eleventh century the king's resources in the county as a whole were considerable. They are only rivalled in the East Midlands by a similar concentration in the Peak of Derbyshire.[6] Indeed, much of Nottinghamshire north of the River Trent was royal demesne centred on the five great manors of Mansfield, Grimston, Oswaldbeck, Dunham, and Arnold. There was in addition a large comital estate based upon Bothamsall.[7] At the earlier period, considerably more land had belonged to the crown, or  had  been  in  its soke. The estates of Southwell, and Sutton and Scrooby were granted by the crown to the Archbishop of York in the mid tenth century.[8] Interlocking patterns of estates suggest that almost the whole of the area had been folkland under the king at some period prior to 1066.[9] Laxton was part of Grimston, the manors of the archbishop and Roger de Bully in the wapentake of Oswaldbeck were part of the soke of the same name, and probably many of Roger's estates in Bassetlaw formerly belonged to Bothamsall, Dunham, and possibly Mansfield.[10]

            The whole of this area was probably known as Sherwood, the shire wood, before the Conquest. In the thirteenth century the bounds of the forest were limited to an area to the north of Nottingham and did not extend much beyond the boundaries of the wapentake of Broxtow.[11] But royal demesne throughout the county was subject to forest law, and it is clear from the Pipe Rolls that the forest encompassed the whole of the Clay and Hatfield in the twelfth century.[12] It was, moreover, evident-ly an ancient institution for in Edgar's grant of Sutton to the arch-bishop of York in 958, the area to the north of the estate is said to be situated in Sherwood.[13] Despite booking of land, the king had  apparently retained rights over the whole of Nottinghamshire north of the Trent for the area of the forest extended beyond his demesne in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Evidence for such reservation of dues is probably to be found in a post-Conquest Latin translation of an authentic English writ of Edward the Confessor. Between 1060 and 1065 the king informed Tosti and all his thanes in Yorkshire and Nottingham-shire that he had granted to Archbishop Ældred 'sake and soke, toll and team over his men within my soke as fully as he has in his own land'.[14] Unfortunately, the lands in question are not named, although, as suggested above,[15] the writ may refer, inter alia, to the archbishop's estate in Oswaldbeck. But it is clear that the archbishop held land over which the king had retained soke of an unspecified nature. The writ clearly indicates that the king was reserving rights, and thus that the process of booking was limited.

            The precise nature of these rights is not explicit, but the nature of the king's interest and concern is illustrated by the reservation of tolls over the same area and beyond. These dues are first defined in Nottinghamshire in the foundation charter of Blyth in 1088. Roger de Bully granted the monks 'theloneum et passagium' over a large area of north Nottinghamshire and west Yorkshire. The banlieu extended from Radeford, the River Ryton, to an unidentified Thornewad, and from Frodestan, again unidentified, to the River Idle, presumably at Retford.[16] Roger's liberty may have been more extensive for the toll which  he enjoyed in Gunthorpe in succession to (Earl?) Morcar may have been the same type of due.[17] It is not clear how he came to be in possession of this liberty for almost nothing is known about the tenant-in-chief, but it is unlikely that it was derived from a predecessor in his own right. From a confirmation charter of Henry I, it is clear that his  thelonea extended beyond the bounds of his own estate  [18]and, thus, it can only have been conferred by the crown.

            By the twelfth century the toll of most of the rest of the shire belonged to the borough of Nottingham, and the royal origins of the exaction are plain. In c.1155, Henry II granted to the burgesses of Nottingham all the free customs which they had in the time of King Henry I, namely, toll and team, and infangentheof, and thelonia from Thrumpton to Newark, and of all things crossing the Trent as fully as in the borough of Nottingham, and on the other side from the brook beyond Rempstone to the water of Radford in the north.[19] Earl John's confirmation of c.1189 adds 'and from Bycarr's Dyke'.[20] The bounds so defined appear to be primarily related to the main lines of communication. 'From Thrumpton to Newark' clearly refers to the passage of the Trent. Its course from Newark to the north may thus have been excluded.[21] 'From the brook beyond Rempstone to the water of  Radford' must be related to the main king's highway through the shire from the south as far as the River Ryton, which would therefore appear to define the southern limit of Blyth's banlieu.[22] In 1330 the boundary was said to extend from the River Idle to Ordsall, Twyford Bridge, Normanton near Bothamsall, and thence south to Radford. This, however, was not the full extent of the liberty. In 1225 the burgesses of Nottingham leased part of their toll, including that to the north of Retford, to the men of Retford.[23] As indicated by John's charter, the banlieu clearly extended to the county boundary to the north. To the west, it evidently extended beyond the limits of the county into Derbyshire. In 1232, the burgesses leased tolls to the lord of Ilkeston in his lands of the fee of Gant for 2 shillings per annum.[24] Indeed, the tolls of the shire granted to Derby in 1204 may also have belonged to Nottingham in the twelfth century, for they are said to be those liberties which the king's burgesses of Nottingham had in the reign of Henry I, and are not noted in a charter of liberties granted to Derby by Henry II in 1155-60.[25]

            As with Blyth's liberties, Nottingham's tolls were not confined to one fee, but were a due which was exacted generally. It is therefore in marked contrast with the toll which the possessor of sake and soke, toll and team expected in 1066.[26] Indeed, the two types are implicitly distinguished in the c.1155 charter. The one is called thelonia, the other toll.[27] Although the former is merely the Latin form of the latter, the use of the two words was clearly intended to differentiate diverse renders. The nature of the distinction is indeed implied in the Blyth charter in which thelonia is linked with passagium, and it is explicit in that of Retford where it is called thurtol, through toll.[28] Thus, both Blyth and Nottingham enjoyed the toll on the main lines of communication through the shire from all who use them, with, as is clear from the confirmation of Blyth's liberties in c.1105, the sole exception of merchants of the king's household.[29] By way of contrast, the lord who held his land with sake and soke, toll and team was merely entitled to local tolls from his own estates.[30] Toll was a royal privilege, and so a fortiori was thelonia.[31] Thus, in 1225, prior to the lease of tolls, an inquisition was held into the customs that the men of Nottingham had in the vill of Retford in aid of the farm of their town.[32] The tolls were royal, and any changes in collection therefore touched the king's interests.

            Nottinghamshire is not unusual in the king possessing such tolls. They were probably universally levied for they were connected with the establishment of legal  markets  within  boroughs[33] and  the  king's especial protection of the major roads and rivers. Thus, 'in Nottingham the river Trent and the dyke (or Fosse Way) and the road to York are so protected that if anyone hinders the passage of the ships, or if anyone ploughs or makes a dyke within two perches of the king's road, he has to pay a fine of 8 pounds'.[34] This passage may only refer to Nottingham itself, but similar penalties must have applied throughout the county. But usually such dues were granted piecemeal before the Conquest to individuals or religious institutions. Peterborough Abbey, for example, possessed toll in the soke of Peterborough and the Eight Hundreds of Oundle, probably from the time of its refoundation in c.972.[35] In Nottinghamshire, however, they remained more or less intact.

            As the king's borough par excellence, Nottingham was the natural focus for these dues, and it is possible, therefore, that Blyth's liberties were ultimately derived from it. However, it is equally possible that they relate to a separate borough in the north of the county. There are, of course, no references to such an institution in the extant sources. But there is another characteristic of the Bully fee which, like the right to tolls, suggests that it was related to a general authority, by implication royal, in the north of Nottinghamshire. In 1145 King Stephen gave the chapelry of Blyth (capellarium de Blida) to the cathedral church of Lincoln, along with all of its churches, chapels, tithes, and lands, and all  the  appurtenances thereof.[36] This was no ordinary parochial chapel, for it consisted of a large number of churches with full parochial rights. In 1191-3, when a grant of the institution to St.Mary of Rouen was confirmed by John, earl of Mortain, it had rights in four separate groups of parishes, each of which emcompassed, or was adjacent to, an important estate centre.[37] Harworth, with its chapels of Serlby and Martin, was situated on the northern boundary of Nottinghamshire between Tickhill and Blyth. Wheatley, whether North or South is not clear, stood alone in the wapentake of Oswaldbeck, but probably included the manor of Oswaldbeck itself.[38] West Markham, with its chapels of Kirton, Walesby, Houghton, Bevercotes, West Drayton, Gamston, and Egmanton, along with the church of East Markham, formed a large group which almost encircled the comital manor of Bothamsall.[39] Finally, the parishes of East Bridgford in the wapentake of Bingham and Gonalston and Lowdham in Thurgarton, with its chapel of Gunthorpe where (Earl?) Morcar held a manor, formed a discrete group which straddled the Trent.[40] There were, in addition, various parcels of land and tithes in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, notably in Tickhill. Although in the gift of the king and the earl of Mortain in the twelfth century, the chapelry was evidently part of the Bully fee. Thus, it was identified by the same name as Roger's honour, and three of the churches, East Bridgford, East Markham, and Harworth, were entered in his Domesday Book breve.[41] The king, and through him the Earl of Mortain, clearly had the right to it on  account of the escheat of the honour to the crown in 1141.[42]

            In the fourteenth century, the whole organisation was claimed as a royal free chapel, that is, as a peculiar which was exempt from ordinary jurisdiction.[43] Whether this was an ancient characteristic of the chapelry was a matter of dispute at the time. It is clear from the archiepiscopal registers, however, that the archdeacon of Nottingham instituted clerks to the churches of Egmanton, Gonalston, Harworth, Houghton, and Gamston in the thirteenth century, on the authority of Archbishops Gray and Gifford. Moreover, the vicars of East Markham and Wheatley, and the proctor of St. Mary of Rouen were subject to episcopal discipline.[44] But in 1191 and 1199 Geoffrey Archbishop of York confirmed the grant of the chapelry, but specifically reserved episcopal dues.[45] This would be a somewhat otiose stipulation unless ordinary jurisdiction had been claimed in the past, for episcopal authority was all but universal, and was always understood in such grants. Indeed, the term capellaria implies a very special ecclesiastical liberty when used in the present context.[46] The king's claim in the fourteenth century may thus have been grounded in long established custom. On balance, then, it seems likely that the institution enjoyed extensive rights in the twelfth century and probably before.

            Royal free chapels of this type are usually associated with important early churches and  estates.  All  Saints'/St.  Alkmund's,  in Derby, for example, was an ancient minster, and the dean of the foundation exercised episcopal authority in the church and its parochia.[47] The constituent churches of the chapelry of Blyth, then, may have constituted the parish of a major minster or part thereof. Blyth is the obvious choice for the location of such a foundation. But, despite the name, the jurisdiction was attached to the chapel of St. Nicholas in the castle of Tickhill.[48] This may, however, have been a recent innovation. According to Hunter, the Yorkshire antiquarian, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine was said to have founded the chapelry.[49] No reference is given for this assertion and, as it stands, it cannot be correct. As we have seen,[50] it was already in existence in 1145. But Eleanor had an interest in the institution for it was granted to Rouen at her request.[51] If based upon authentic tradition, then, the statement may refer to the reorganisation of the chapelry in which dues were transferred from Blyth to Tickhill.

            If Blyth is the more likely focus of the institution in the early twelfth century, the widespread distribution of its component elements, and its apparent relationship to important estates centres, may point less to a minster church than to an authority that had received ecclesiastical dues over a large area. As with toll, Roger de Bully  may have been heir to extensive royal prerogatives relating to tithes. Some relationship between the two regalian dues, then, might be expected. The banlieu of Roger's tolls as defined in the foundation charter of Blyth does not coincide exactly with the extent of the chapelry,[52] but he may have granted only part of his liberty. Indeed, in 1086 he enjoyed toll (theloneum) and a ship which rendered 30 shillings and 8 pence in Gunthorpe.[53] The tolls cannot have been extensive for the value is low, but the due, if of the same type, may be a vestige of a wider banlieu at an earlier period and, significantly, it is associated with a vill which was a member of the chapelry of Blyth.

            The association of such dues with the Bully fee must indicate a royal organisation of some type, but does not necessarily imply the existence of a borough in the north of the county. The distinctive characteristics of the honour, however, are not inconsistent with such a conclusion. Indeed, the place names of the chapelry may even suggest a separate entity. The first elements in the names Harworth, Martin, and Markham all refer to boundaries.[54] Two presumably relate to that of the county, but the third was marked by no known administrative division in the eleventh century. Nor would such a borough be without parallel. After the construction of the defences south of the Trent at Nottingham in 920, Edward the Elder built a borough in the vicinity of Bakewell in the Peak District of Derbyshire.[55] It was probably part of an offensive against Ragnald's regime in York, and was  clearly  successful for the north almost immediately submitted.[56] There is no trace, however, of the burgal status of Bakewell in the Domesday Book description of the settlement.[57] Its function, it seems, had accrued to the county town. Nevertheless, Derby did not enjoy tolls in the north of the county.[58] A borough in Nottinghamshire would probably have experienced a similar fate for it cannot have had a separate existence after carucation in the mid tenth century when the shire as an integrated administrative area came into being.[59] It is likely, then, that it would have been built before this date, and Edward's 920 campaign would have provided a not unreasonable occasion. He was using both Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire as forward offensive positions at this time, and a borough in the north of the county would have forestalled an outflanking incursion from York via the Trent or the North Road. The identification of a site can, of course, be nothing more than speculation. But Blyth is a possibility. Situated on the main road, it occupies a strategic position of some importance. Tickhill, however, cannot be ruled out. Identified as Dadsley in Domesday Book, with 21 burgesses, it was probably a borough in 1086, and was the caput of the Bully fee. Archaeological field work may produce more concrete evidence in the near future.

            The rights of the king in Sherwood in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and the monopoly of tolls in Nottingham and Blyth, then, are symptomatic of an archaic system of administration. Much  of  the  shire had evidently been royal land at some period before the Conquest. In 1066 the king still held a large number of estates. But, although the crown had not resisted alienation altogether, it had reserved certain regalian rights, many of which, as before, were still administered through the county borough. The special interest that the king maintained in Nottingham, then, was but the corrollary of the authority he preserved in the county. The key to an understanding of this remarkable phenomenon lies in the strategic importance of the shire. The county was defended to the north by the wilderness of the Isle of Axholme and Hatfield Chase. But it provided the crucial link between Yorkshire and the heart of Mercia. Tamworth was only within 40 miles of Nottingham, and the Trent offered a rapid and convenient means of transport. It was therefore of crucial importance as a marcher area when there was tension between north and south. As we shall see,[60] the control of the shire was an abiding leitmotif of northern politics in the ninth to eleventh centuries. It is not surprising, then, that the crown kept a firm grip on the area.

            The formation and identity of Nottinghamshire was probably a function of these characteristics. The term 'shire' in the sense of a county is not unambiguously used in the North until the early years of the eleventh century.[61] Nottinghamshire as a unit  of  administration, however, had already been defined at this time. Local government was based upon a carucation imposed in the mid tenth century which was articulated through the integrated network of wapentakes and half wapentakes of the Domesday county and later.[62] The area of the historical shire, then, must also date from the time that this system was introduced. If there had been a borough in the north of the county, its territory must have been integrated into the new organisation at the same time, if not before, and since the assessment of the wapentakes of Martinsley and Alstoe was fully integrated into the quotas of the shire, Roteland too must have appended to Nottinghamshire by the 960s.[63]

            This was a period of massive reorganisation in the North. The Five Boroughs as a unified institution were set up as a buffer zone against an unstable Northumbria, and the new system of administration was introduced to maintain the peace and co-coordinate local defence.[64] It is clear from Æthelred's Wantage Code that the system was federal in structure,[65] but there is evidence that there had been a considerable amount of rearrangement of territory to create efficient units of administration. It was almost certainly at this time that Stamford and its tributary territory were appended to Lincoln. In the eleventh century the name Lindsey was often used to refer to the whole of Lincolnshire, suggesting that the political initiative had come from Lincoln, the centre of the northern division of the new county, and both Lindsey and Kesteven were apparently carucated by a common authority. The association of the two boroughs of Lincoln and Stamford, then, must date from at least the time when the Domesday assessment was introduced.[66] Holland, if formerly part of East Anglia, must also have been appended to the two boroughs at this time.[67] Despite the fact that carucation rather than historic precedent or strategic considerations determined the structure of units, the relationship between Roteland and Nottinghamshire at first sight still appears anomalous, for the two regions are physically remote. But in character Roteland was more akin to Nottinghamshire than the neighbouring shires of Leicester and Lincoln. Much of it was forest, and the whole may have constituted a royal estate.[68] The interests of the crown were still well represent-ed in 1066, and residual rights were probably retained in the land that had been alienated.[69] Like Nottinghamshire, it was an area in which the crown's interests were pronounced, and it was therefore natural that the two should be administered together within the Five Boroughs.

            Derby and its territory were probably also appended to Nottinghamshire at this time. Up to the early tenth century, it had evidently been independent. In 917 the Anglo-Saxon chronicle records that Æthelflaed won the borough called Derby, with God's help,  together with all that belonged to it.[70] Edward the Elder subsequently took Tamworth, and all Mercia that had owed allegiance to Æthelflaed submitted to him. But Nottingham was not included for Edward then occupied the town, and all the people settled in Mercia, both English and Danes submitted to him.[71] Clearly, Nottingham and Derby were separate political entities. But at the time of Domesday, and subsequently in the Middle Ages, the two counties were closely associated. There was only one sheriff from before 1086, and the shire courts met together in Nottingham.[72] The relationship was almost certainly of long standing. As we have already seen,[73] Nottingham's toll banlieu extended into Derbyshire, and may originally  have covered the whole of the south of the county. The men of Derbyshire were also enjoined to attend the Saturday Market in Nottingham, although this may have been a reciprocal arrangement for Derby had a similar monopoly on Thursdays. Nevertheless, it was Nottingham's liberties that took precedence within the two shires.[74] Such links betray every sign of antiquity. Indeed, the assessment of Derbyshire suggests that it was closely associated with Nottinghamshire from the time of the carucation. Some 675 carucates are recorded in Domesday Book, but 140 had been held by the crown in 1066. As we have seen, terra regis was evidently not included in county quotas.[75] Thus, there is left an assessment of  535 carucates, which is very close to the suggested quota of 504 carucates of Nottinghamshire. Moreover, there were six wapentakes,[76] and there is evidence that each was also assigned a quota of 84 carucates (figure 18). Like those of Nottinghamshire, the totals are only approximations, but the figures are remarkably consistent,[77] and significantly half wapentakes are found in the fourteenth century.[78] It is likely,  then, that a common principle of carucation was employed in both Nottingham-shire and Derbyshire based upon a quota of seven twelve-carucate hundreds per wapentake. It can be concluded that, by implication, both counties were subject to the common authority at the time that assessment was imposed.


Figure 18: the assessment of Derbyshire in 1086.      






. bov


















            The introduction of the Confederacy of the Five Boroughs, then, probably witnessed a considerable reorganisation of territory. Each borough had its own local administration, but for political purposes, certain centres took the lead. With the threat from the North, Lincoln was in the front line, and Stamford was probably appended to it with a penal assessment for its support. So, a fortiori, was Nottingham. Indeed, it may well have been the headquarters of the whole confederacy for Nottinghamshire commanded the main route from Mercia and the south into Yorkshire. Thus, in 934 Athelstan passed through Nottingham on his way to Northumbria, and in 1016 the direct route from the South to York took Cnut through Nottinghamshire.[79] It is likely that Roteland was appended to it for its sustenance as well as Derbyshire, while the heavy assessment of Leicestershire may imply that the county stood in the same relation to Nottingham as did Stamford to Lincoln.[80] It was not until the dissolution of the Confederacy in the early eleventh century, that these new administrative areas emerged as autonomous units to form the shires, with all their peculiarities, of the mediaeval period.[81]

[1] S. Reynolds, English Medieval Towns, Oxford 1977, ix, x.

[2] The term embraces those settlements which are described at the head of each Domesday county. Not all were county towns. Some, like Stamford and Torksey, were subordinate to other centres, but they were nevertheless of sufficient importance to be treated in the same way (A. Ballard, The Domesday Boroughs, Oxford 1904, 5, 43).

[3] Defence and urbanisation went hand in hand; see chapter 10.

[4] EHD i, 384.

[5] Yorks. DB, SN, Y1. It should be noted, however, that the honour of Colsuain, the constable  of Lincoln Castle, shares many characteristics with that of William Peverel. Much of it was concentrated around the city of Lincoln and had a distinctively pre-Conquest identity, and in the thirteenth century it met in Bardolf's Hall in the Bail rather than the castle, even though the caput of the fee was in Brattleby.(Lincs. DB, breve no. 26; J. W. F. Hill, Medieval Lincoln, Cambridge 1948, 87, 105).

[6] Derbys. DB, 1,27-34; D. R. Roffe, The Derbyshire Domesday, Darley Dale 1986, 25-7. The whole of Hamenstan Wapentake, that is, the High and Low Peak, had formerly been held by the crown. The 60 manentes at Hope and Ashford granted by Athelstan in 926 (ECNE, 103) can probably be identified with the sixty Domesday vills in the region (D. R. Roffe, 'The Origins of Derbyshire', forthcoming DAJ, 1986).

[7] Notts. DB, breve no. 1.

[8] ECNE, 111-2.

[9] The date at which estates fragmented cannot usually be determined with great precision. The process was under way in Derbyshire by c.950 (Roffe, The Derbyshire Domesday, 9-10), and it has been suggested that the main stimulus came with the Danish colonisation of the East Midlands and the North (P. H. Sawyer, 'Some Sources for the History of Viking Northumbria', Viking Age York, ed. R. A. Hall, London 1978, 7). The appearance of Danish place-name forms with personal names as a first element within large estates or their vicinity, certainly does indicate that some settlements had assumed a discrete identity by the early tenth century. The ordered division of sokes, however, suggests that the process was far from ad hoc. Indeed, it seems likely that residual rights were usually retained by an overlord in the ancient estate centre. Such often only survive into the later Middle Ages in the parochia of the church of the soke.

[10] See chapter 5

[11] D. Crook, 'The Struggle over Forest Boundaries in Nottinghamshire 1218-1227', TTS 83, (1979), 35-45.

[12] J. C. Holt, The Northerners: a Study in the Reign of King John, Oxford 1961, 194 and Map 2.

[13] ECNE, 112; G. T. Davies, 'The Anglo-Saxon Boundaries of Sutton and Scrooby, Nottinghamshire', TTS 87, (1983), 13-22.

[14] F. E. Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, Manchester 1952, no. 119.

[15] See chapter 5.

[16] TMS, 92-3; Blyth Cartulary, ed. R. T. Timson, TSRS 27-8, no. 293.

[17] Notts. DB, 9.74.

[18] Blyth Cartulary, no. 293.

[19] RBN i, 2, 3.

[20] RBN i, 11.

[21] In 1281 the bishop of Lincoln claimed throughtoll at Newark, Spaldingford, Waith, Collingham, and Stokes. In 1329 he also enjoyed toll at Clifton, Besthorpe, and Coddington (QW, 442, 660). All of these vills were in the wapentake of Newark, and it seems likely that he was entitled to the due from the whole of Nottinghamshire east of the Trent. It is not clear, however, whether the liberties were an original appurtenance of the manor of Newark, for no mention is made of toll in the confirmation of the estate to the bishop of Dorchester in 1053-5 (Cartulary of the Abbey of Eynsham i, ed. H. E. Salter, Oxford 1907, 28-9). But the fact adds substantial weight to the essentially topographic al argument that has been produced to suggest that the wapentake of Newark was originally independent of Nottinghamshire, and possibly attached to Lincolnshire (A. Rogers, 'The Origins of Newark: the Evidence of Local Boundaries', TTS 78, (1974), 74-87). It must, however, have been administered from Nottingham by the time of carucation in the second half of the tenth century for the assessment of Newark was an integral element in the quota assigned to the territory of Nottingham (see below and chapter 10).

[22] VCH Notts. i, 239; Blyth Cartulary, ciii, no. A125.

[23] RBN i, 11.

[24] BL Add. Charter, 47,498. I would like to thank S. N. Mastoris for drawing my attention to this document.

[25] Rot. Chart, 138; CChR i, 96; Blyth Cartulary, l.

[26] Notts. DB, S5.

[27] RBN i, 2, 3.

[28] TMS, 92; RBN i, 11.

[29] TMS, 92; Blyth Cartulary, no. 293.

[30] H. R. Loyn, The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England 500-1087, London 1984, 162.

[31] Those who had sake and soke, toll and team, were entitled to the king's two pennies (Notts. DB, S5).

[32] Rot. Lit. Claus. ii, 82.

[33] The establishment of legal markets in boroughs first appears in the surviving law codes in the reign of Athelstan (EHD i, 354), and it is at about this time that toll is also first found in the sources (F. E. Harmer, 'Chipping and Market: a Lexicographical Investigation', The Early Cultures of North-West Europe (H. M. Chadwick Memorial Studies), eds C. Fox, B. Dickens, Cambridge 1950, 342-9; J. Hoops, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Strassburg 1918-19, s. v. Zoll). For the relationship between toll banlieus and the burghal system of Athelstan, see Roffe, 'The Origins of Derbyshire'.

[34] Notts. DB, B20.

[35] ECEE, 25-6; G. N. Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 2nd ed., London 1975, 116-7. The charter is spurious, but clearly draws upon authentic tradition. See Lincs. DB, p9/1.

[36] The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln i, ed. C. W. Foster, Lincoln 1930, 62, 211.

[37] Cal. Doc. France, no. 61.

[38] PNN, 43.

[39] Notts. DB, 1,9.

[40] Notts. DB, 9,74.

[41] Notts. DB, 9,6; 55; 100.

[42] I. J. Sanders, English Baronies, Oxford 1960, 147.

[43] J. H. Denton, English Royal Free Chapels 1100-1300, Manchester 1970, 115.

[44] The Register, or Rolls, of Walter Gray, Lord Archbishop of York; with Appendices of Illustrative Documents, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society 56, (1872), 93-4; The Register of Walter Giffard, Lord Archbishop of York, 1266-1279, ed. W. Brown, Surtees Society 109, (1904), 4, 73, 91, 260-1.

[45] Cal. Doc. France, no. 62.

[46] Denton, Royal Free Chapels, 1-20.

[47] Denton, Royal Free Chapels, 1, 109-12. The two foundations of St, Alkmund and All Saints were united in the the twelfth century, although there were two distinct churches into the modern period. At the time of Domesday, however, they appear to have constituted a pair of minsters of a type which is also found in Chester, Shrewsbury, and Gloucester (Derbys. DB, B1; A. T. Thacker, 'Chester and Gloucester: Early Ecclesiastical Organisation in Two Mercian Burhs', Northern History xviii, 199-211).

[48] Rot. Lit. Claus. i, 70; Blyth Cartulary, cxxviii.

[49] J. Hunter, South Yorkshire: the History and Topography of the Deanery of Doncaster in the Diocese of York i, London 1828, 235-6.

[50] Above.

[51] Cal. Doc. France, no. 46.

[52] Only Harworth, Serlby, Martin, West Drayton, and Gamston were in the toll banlieu. With the exception of the East Bridgford complex, however, the rest of the chapelry was adjacent to it.

[53] Notts. DB, 9, 74.

[54] PNN, 55, 80, 81.

[55] ASC, 67; C. R. Hart, The North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey, Chesterfield 1981, 118-121.

[56] See chapter 10.

[57] Derbys. DB, 1,27. Bakewell was a manor, albeit a very important one. With a market, fair, and burgage tenure in the thirteenth century, the settlement had some pretensions to urban status (Hart, North Derbyshire, 140). It is unlikely, however, that there was any institutional continuity from the tenth century.

[58] Roffe, 'The Origins of Derbyshire'.

[59] See below and chapter 10.

[60] See chapter 10.

[61]  C. S. Taylor, 'The Origin of the Mercian Shires', Gloucestershire Studies, ed. H. P. R. Finburg, Leicester 1957, 18. The Ramsey chronicler records that the great men of East Anglia, and of Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Northamptonshire, and Kesteven attended the reconsecration of Ramsey Abbey in 991 (Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis, ed. W. Dunn Macray, London 1886, 93). However, although based upon early material, the account is a post-Conquest compilation. At the time of the Wantage Code (c.998), the five boroughs and their territories were still subject to the authority of an ealdorman and king's reeve in the meeting of the Five Boroughs (EHD i, 403). The concept of the shire, then, as it is  known  in  the  eleventh century, if not necessarily the term, was inappropriate in the tenth century in the East Midlands.

[62] See chapter 6.

[63] See chapter 5.

[64] See chapter 10. The five boroughs were coordinated in a meeting over which the ealdorman and king's reeve presided. Nevertheless, the system was not an association of formerly independent entities, but a fully integrated polity (Roffe, 'Origins of Derbyshire').

[65] EHD i, 403.

[66] C. M. Mahany, D. R. Roffe, 'Stamford: the Development of an Anglo-Scandinavian Borough', Anglo-Norman Studies V: the Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1982, ed. R. A. Brown, Woodbridge 1983, 211-15. If the wapentake of Newark had formerly been part of Lindsey (see above), it must have been lost to Nottingham by this time.

[67] C. R. Hart, 'Athelstan "Half King" and his Family', Anglo-Saxon England 2, (1973), 138-43.

[68] C. Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', Mercian Studies, ed. A. Dornier, Leicester 1977, 63-70.

[69] Rutland DB, R6, 7-20. Thus, seven and a half hides and one bovate of land in Empingham, in Witchley Hundred, Northamptonshire, in 1086, were held by Gilbert de Ghent in the soke of Roteland (Northants. DB, 46,5).

[70] ASC, 64.

[71] ASC, 66-7.

[72] D. Crook, '"Moothallgate" and the Venue of the Nottinghamshire County Court in the Thirteenth Century', TTS 88, (1984), 99-102; D. Crook, 'The Establishment of the Derbyshire County Court, 1256', DAJ 103, (1983), 98-106.

[73] Above.

[74] RBN i, 2, 3; Rot. Chart., 138.

[75] In the fourteenth century the king's share of divided settlements in Derbyshire was always constituted as a separate vill, a clear indication of the separate administration of royal estates at an earlier period (Roffe, 'The Origins of Derbyshire').

[76] Five wapentakes - Scarsdale, Hamenstan, Morleyston, Walecross and Appletree - are named in the Derbyshire folios (Derbys. DB, 1,1; 11; 19. 2,1. 6,1; 14; 70. 10,12; S5). But rubrication is so sporadic that it is not possible to reconstruct their area from the survey alone. Later sources must be used in conjunction with the Domesday data. The first comprehensive list of Derbyshire wapentakes and their constituent vills is found in the records of the lay subsidy of 1334 (R. E. Glasscock, The Lay Subsidy of 1334, London 1975, 42-8). Although a late source, it clearly draws upon much earlier administrative records. It names 257 vills in seven wapentakes - High Peak, Wirksworth, Scarsdale, Repton, Appletree, Morleyston, and Litchurch. But already by 1275 Litchurch had been dismembered. Half had been appended to Morleyston and the remainder formed a private bailiwick, known as Perimplementum, which was attached to Appletree. This arrangement may have been instituted as early as the reign of King John when the  Earl of Ferrers was first granted the wapentake of Appletree (RH ii, 288, 295; FA i, 254-5; R. Somerville, History of the Duchy of Lancaster i, London 1953, 352; S.C. Newton, 'The Parliamentary Surveys of the Hundreds of Appletree and Gresley', DAJ 81, 1961, 132-3). The administrative structure of the lay subsidy was therefore already archaic in the fourteenth century. Indeed, the area of the wapentakes coincides remarkably well with the bounds of the Derbyshire deaneries which were probably modelled on local government units in the mid twelfth century (The Cartulary of Darley Abbey, ed. R. R. Darlington, London 1945, A lxv, A12; VCH Derby ii, 41; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, London 1802, 246-7). It is clear, then, that the source drew upon twelfth or early thirteenth - century records. In its essentials, moreover, it evidently represents the eleventh - century system for the vills of the wapentakes of 1334 are consistently grouped together in Domesday Book. In breve no.6, for example, twenty of the Litchurch vills are enrolled one after the other (Derby DB, 6,80-99. Due allowance has been made for repetition of wapentake sequence ). Although the wapentake does not appear eo nomine, it was clearly  in existence in 1086 and apparently had the same boundaries, in terms of the vills that it encompassed, as those outlined in 1334. The only significant change seems to have been in the north of the shire. Estates which were subsequently in the wapentakes of  High Peak and Wirksworth are enrolled under the rubric Hamenstan in Domesday Book (Derby DB, 1,11). It would appear that the two wapentakes had formed a single division in the eleventh century. The available sources, then, suggest that there were six wapentakes in Derbyshire in 1086.

[77] The standard deviation is 4.4.

[78] FA i, 246.

[79] S 407; ASC, 94-5.

[80] Mahany, Roffe, 'Stamford', 214-5.

[81] See chapter 10.