8. NOTTINGHAM AND THE SHIRE
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.
:
:
|
WAPENTAKE |
ASSESSMENT
|
|
|
car |
. bov |
|
Hamenstan |
87 |
0½ |
|
Scarsdale |
86 |
1½ |
|
Appletree |
88 |
21/3 |
|
Repton |
85 |
6 |
|
Morleyston |
98 |
05/6 |
|
Litchurch |
91 |
4 |
:
[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.