9. SETTLEMENTS AND ESTATE STRUCTURE
Superficially the reconstruction of the
eleventh-century landscape is the easiest task for the historian of the period.
Domesday Book appears to furnish a mass of detailed evidence. The apparent record
of settlement is unparalleled in most areas before the Hundred Rolls of the
late thirteenth century, and the general survey of estate structure and
stocking is unique in the Middle Ages. Comparable descriptions of the minutiae
of resources and management are confined to individual estates and manors.
However, the unique nature of the record is at the very root of the problem of
interpretation. Unlike, for example, the extents of inquisitions post mortem, the context of the Domesday
data is rarely understood. Nevertheless, by the judicious use of other types of
evidence, critical criteria can be developed. We have already seen that the
record of churches is very deceptive. Archaeological and structural evidence
demonstrates the existence of many foundations in the mid eleventh century
which do not appear in the text. This is not surprising if Domesday Book is
primarily a record of demesnal estates and the dues which they enjoyed. We can
hardly expect it to provide us with a complete list of pre-Conquest churches.
But such a realisation opens up new possibilities of interpretation. The record
of a church, or its omission, enables us to evaluate something of its status in
the eleventh century which would otherwise be impossible from the available
sources. By no means a complete or objective survey, Domesday Book nevertheless tells us much about what it does
record.[1]
The significance of identifying place-names is a problem of the same kind,
although considerably more complex to interpret. It has long been recognised
that many settlements which independent evidence shows to have been in
existence in the eleventh century, do not appear by name.[2]
Straightforward oversight on the part of the Domesday commissioners is
sometimes responsible, but the phenomenon is so common that this is clearly not
always a sufficient explanation. Both the procedures of the inquiry and the
sources employed introduce distortions into the survey in this context as in
many others. The identifying names of the Domesday Book must be examined in
these terms before we can fully understand what evidence they provide for the
elucidation of settlement structures.
Three
hundred and thirteen place-names are recorded in the Notting-hamshire folios.
Occasionally it is immediately possible to discern some characteristics of
settlements to which they refer, for adjacent vills with the same name are
sometimes given differentiating epithets. Morton, for example, is distinguished
from 'the other Morton' and North Morton, Ordsall from South Ordsall, North
from South Muskham.[3]
Some settlements were apparently divided in 1086 although not subsequently: two
Chilwells and two Thistletons are represented in the later records as single
settlements,[4]
but nevertheless it seems likely that the usage implies two separate nuclei, if
not necessarily two nucleated villages. Most divisions of this kind, however,
are probably not made explicit in the text. There were, for example, four
estates called Leverton at the time of Domesday held by the archbishop of York,
Roger de Bully, the king, and Count Alan.[5] By
1316, North and South Leverton constituted separate vills, the one held by
Master Lewis de
Beaumont and Adam de Everingham, and the other by the king and Thomas
Latimer.[6]
Since the four fees apparently descend from the four Domesday estates, the very
same division between North and South Leverton may have been in existence in
1086.[7]
The
failure to distinguish different settlements is not confined to those with the
same name. Some entries identified by one name include settlements subsequently
known by a different name. According to Domes-day Book, William Peverel held a
manor in Toton with half a church.[8] In
the thirteenth century the vill was situated in the parish of Attenborough,
half of the advowson of the church of which belonged to the Peverel fee. The
other half was appurtenant to a holding which descended from an estate with
half a church, which was identified as Chilwell and East Chilwell in Domesday
Book.[9]
It seems likely that Attenborough was in existence in 1086, but its description
is subsumed in the entries for Toton and the Chilwells. In both cases the
identify-ing place-names are evidently those of estates. The Southwell entry,
of course, affords the most obvious example of the use of an estate name in the
Nottinghamshire text. The one name describes the estate centre and twelve
unnamed berewicks which belonged to
it.[10]
The dependent settlements can be identified from independent evidence as
Normanton, Upton, Fiskerton, Farnsfield, Gibsmere, Bleasby, Goverton,
Halloughton, Hallam, Kirklington, and Morton.[11] But
many entries may be of this type, although the fact is but rarely explicit.
Such names were probably taken from seigneurial sources and, where they have
been extensively used in, for example, breves
which take their form the tenant-in-chief's return, the identifying names
probably indicate estate and, by implication, settlement nuclei, with some
degree of precision. As estate names, however, they may encompass several
settlements other than the ones named.
Not
all Domesday place-names, however, are of this type. The names of local
government units were extensively employed in the North. Thus, in Lincolnshire,
the hundred name is frequently used. An estate in Long Sutton, for example, is
identified as Tydd because in was situated in the hundred of that name.[12]
It has been suggested that all Domesday names in the West Riding of Yorkshire
were those of townships.[13] Such
names were presumably taken from an official source, almost certainly a geld
list, and imply that relatively little use was made of seigneurial returns in
those breves in which they occur.
Clearly, as names of local government units, they do not necessarily identify
either estate or settlement nuclei. In Nottinghamshire, it has not proved
possible to determine the nature of the unit of local government at its lowest
level, the vill. However, the same type of process may have been at work. The
official part of the survey was derived from a geld list and its nomenclature
may have been adopted in some of the breves.
It is
not always possible, then, to determine whether a place-name is that of an
estate or of a local government unit. However, it is clear that, at best, it
will only identify a nucleus of some kind. In fact, Domesday Book affords very
few clues to the actual form of
settlements. In the past, it has been assumed that mast Anglo-Saxon
settlements were nucleated, that is, of the classic Midlands pattern of peasant
tofts clustered around a church and manor house within an open field system.
Modern research has cast much doubt on this simple picture. In Devon, for
example, there is a landscape of scattered farms set within their own fields
which is evidently an ancient pattern of settlement. Domesday Book, however,
gives the superficial impression that nucleation was the norm.[14]
Disposed settlement patterns may, it seems, be widespread.[15]
It would be misleading, though, to see it as the basic form of Anglo-Saxon
settlement for it is likely that there are both centrifugal and centripetal
forces in the dynamics of settlements in most periods. The nature of society
probably establishes the dominance of one type over another at any one time.
Low population, for example, and relatively weak bonds of lordship, may be reflected
in a more dispersed pattern. By way of contrast, high population and advanced
manorialisation may imply some greater degree of nucleation.[16]
The two alternatives, however, are not mutually exclusive. Eadwy's 956 grant of
Southwell to York attests to some degree of dispersion of settlement for 'the
cottages' are recorded as one of the boundary marks of the estate. But
presumably there was a sizeable royal hall, a natural focus for nucleation,
within Southwell itself.[17] To a
greater or lesser extent, this may have
been true for many settlements in 1086. There is little evidence in
Nottinghamshire, however, to elucidate the relative importance of either form.
In some circuit 6 entries, anomalous descriptions of sokemen and holdings
suggest dispersion of settlement. In Lincolnshire, for example, sokemen are
occasionally said to hold tofts rather than the usual carucates and bovates.[18]
But no such suggestive descriptions appear in the Nottinghamshire text.
Domesday Book in itself, then, can tell us little about the forms of settlement.
Nevertheless,
the survey can be used in conjunction with later evidence to identify
settlement and estate nuclei. The sources of the twelfth century and later
often reflect settlement structure with some degree of accuracy. When it is
possible to reconstruct the descent of estates from 1086 into the thirteenth
century, such evidence can often fill out the terse formulations of Domesday
Book. Thus, as we have already seen, the later history of Leverton tends to
suggest that two of the Domesday fees were situated in North Leverton and two
in South Leverton.[19] The
sites of churches are often useful in this connection. There was frequently a
close relationship between church and manor in the eleventh century, and the
site of the one in the later Middle Ages can often indicate the hall of the
other.[20]
But this method is retrogressive and must therefore be used with considerable
caution. We cannot automatically assume a continuity of site between the
eleventh and thirteenth centuries, and churches, although private in Domesday,
may have entirely different origins which are reflected in their location.[21] At
best, the method can be predictive, and corroborative evidence, such as
archaeological and topographical analysis, must be employed to verify its
conclusions.[22]
Many
of the problems of settlement form would be easier to resolve if we had a
greater understanding of estate structure. But, here again, there are
formidable problems of interpretation. The matter devolves upon the
relationship between Domesday Book manors, tenurial units, and economic
entities. It is clear from early-twelfth century surveys of the estates of
Peterborough and Burton that the three types of organisation often coincided,[23]
but it is equally clear that this was not universal. As we have seen,[24]
the Domesday manor embraces many different types of estate, but in its
essentials, it was not an economic unit. Although not necessarily endowed with
sake and soke, it was primarily concerned with delegated tribute. Its
identifying feature was thus the point at which such dues were rendered. It was
the hall which was its essential physical manifestation. Thus, in Eaton there
were 10 thanes, each with his hall, and there were therefore 10 separate
manors, while in Epperston and Woodborough, Wulfric and Alsi held 3 carucates
and 4 bovates, but there was only one hall
and consequently a
single manor.[25] The
Domesday manor, then, was first and foremost a legal concept and as such was
subject to changes of form which probably amounted to little more than a
redistribution of dues. Hence, in the Nottinghamshire text we read that so many
carucates were held 'pro manerio', 'for' or 'as a manor',[26]
and in Lincolnshire there is evidence that parcels of sokeland were converted
into manors between 1066 and 1086. Thus, Scottlethorpe had been held in soke,
but it was deraigned as a chief manor in 1086.[27]
Indeed, there was probably more change in the structure of manors than is
always apparent. The boundaries of the estates in Sutton in Nottinghamshire and
Barton and Barrow in Lincolnshire both underwent considerable changes between
the later tenth century and Domesday Book. The one lost land, while the other
apparently gained several parcels of sokeland.[28] This
fluidity can hardly imply a generally well defined internal identity. No doubt
the lord's demesne functioned as an economic unit over a long period of time,
although the existence of a portable hall in the bishop of Durham's manor of
West Aukland in County Durham in the late twelfth century suggests that a
permanent establishment was not indispensable.[29] But
in so far as soke was concerned with tribute, it follows that the manor of the
text is not necessarily an economic unit as such.
Nor
was it always the basic tenurial nexus. The record of a tenant or a separate value in some sokeland
entries often suggests the existence of estates within the manor. In Gonalston,
for example, Ernwin the priest and 4 sokemen held 5 bovates of sokeland
belonging to the king's manor of Arnold.[30] This
type of information is not common in Nottinghamshire. But the commissioners
were probably not anxious to record it for many such sub-tenancies in
Lincolnshire only come to light in the Clamores
as opposed to the body of the text.[31]
Other types of evidence, however, suggest that it may have been of widespread
occurrence, and point to some fluidity of management within the structure of
the manor. The tenurial context and status of forinsec sokeland in relation to
the soke centre have already been discussed.[32] The
detachment of parcels of sokeland from the parent manor in the same breve may attest to some similar degree
of separate management. Superficially, such entries appear to have been
inadvertently omitted in the account of the parent manor, and were enrolled in their
appropriate contexts on the basis of the form of a geographically arranged
source. This may in many cases be an adequate explanation of the phenomenon,
but this type of displacement may also
reflect tenurial and/or economic arrangements within the manor in the actual
exploitation of the land. For example, Roger de Bully held a manor in West
Markham, and the account of the estate is followed by that of two parcels of
land in the same place which were soke of the manors of Tuxford, Grove, Eaton,
and Drayton.[33]
In two cases the soke centres were geographically remote, and it seems more
likely that the land in question was actually exploited by the manor in West
Markham. The Domesday manor, then, is not necessarily a basic tenurial unit. As
a soke nexus, however remote, it may encompass several estates which were
managed by someone other than the lord of the soke centre. To what extent these
estates represent economic units in the exploitation of land is unclear. Many
may have functioned in the same way as the manors of the abbeys of Burton and
Peterborough. But evidence is essentially wanting, and at present little is
understood about their relationship with settlements and field systems and the
communities of which they may have formed a part. There are grounds, however,
for believing that lordship was beginning to express itself in terms of
economic manorialisation in the classic sense. The record of demesne teams in
most manorial entries implies the presence of demesne which was cultivated by
the villeins. It is unlikely that the latter were personally unfree in the
eleventh century, but they were evidently closely associated with the estate.[34]
Almost all manorial entries record their presence, while they are rare on
sokeland, and, unlike the sokemen, their liability to the geld is never
recorded. It was almost certainly discharged within the hundred by the tenant
of the manor. Ecclesiastical surveys of estates in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire,
and Lincolnshire indicate that many owed onerous day works.[35]
In a very real sense they belonged to the manor. By way of contrast, the
services of the sokemen, both intra- and extra-manorial, were comparatively
light, and it is probable that manorialisation of their land was not advanced.
There are, thus, only nine entries in the Nottinghamshire Domesday in which
demesne teams are recorded.[36]
However, this may not be significant in
the light of the comparatively low number of sokeland entries. Seigneurial
encroachment onto intra-manorial soke is effectively hidden by the form of the
text. But if there was still personal freedom within the estate, it would
appear that many commodities formerly enjoyed by the community were becoming
more closely identified with the lord's hall. The record of manorial
appurtenances such as woodland, meadow, pasture etc. is unlikely to be a
reliable guide to the extent of economic resources. Rather it reflects those
from which the lord derived a direct or indirect income. Thus, in Lincolnshire,
there is only a handful of references to fen and marshland, despite the fact
that it was a valuable resource.[37] It
would seem that it was generally intercommoned by groups of communities, and
only in exceptional circumstances had it been appropriated by individuals.[38]
It is, then, but rarely noted in Domesday Book. Much woodland is recorded in
the Nottinghamshire text attached to almost every manor north of the Trent.
Already it would seem that each holding had its own share, and in some way it
was attached to the estate. Whether, as in Lincolnshire, there had ever been
any communal interest in the waste is not clear, but by 1086 it seems that much
belonged in some way to the lord's demesne.[39]
As a
class, the large soke is not different from the normal manor in kind, but
extent. It is characterised by a large number of parcels of sokeland, often at
some distance from the caput, which
owed service to a central hall. On this account, the type can hardly have operated
as aconventional manor. In fact,
as we have seen,[40]
it is an estate in which the essential unity is a tributary nexus. The form is
commonly found throughout England in various guises such as soke, lathe, shire,
or multiple estate, and there is no reason to see it as a particularly Danish
institution.[41]
By the time of Domesday Book, many were clearly very fragmented, but their
break-up had given rise to many of the smaller manors in the county. The area
of the former estate can, however, sometimes be identified from the pattern of
interlocking appurtenances in the surrounding estates. Nevertheless, considerable
care is needed in interpretation. First, the institution was still vital in the
eleventh century. It cannot be assumed, then, that all or indeed any
characteristics of a particular example are necessarily ancient. In
Lincolnshire, for example, part of the soke of Greetham in 1086 was situated on
land which had only recently been reclaimed from the sea.[42]
Adjustments in the distribution of sokeland were probably also more common than
is always immediately apparent.[43] Once
estates were held by book, they could be divided or amalgamated at will to suit
the particular requirements of the lord. Any number of imponderables may lie
behind the form of any particular Domesday estate. Second, royal sokes were
sometimes administered in groups. In Derbyshire, Darley, Matlock (Bridge),
Wirksworth, Ashbourne, and Parwich were farmed by a single reeve, as were
Bakewell, Ashford and Hope, for only one value is given for each group.[44]
Such arrangements may not always be so apparent and may therefore conceal the structure of individual estates.
Royal manors are sometimes attached to some other type of organisation. Part of
the soke of Grantham, for example, was in some way appended to the wapentake of
Aswardhurn.[45]
Just quite what this means is uncertain, but in Huntingdonshire some parcels of
land were in the soke of the hundred of Leightonstone, although they were
administered from the royal manor of Alconbury.[46] As
such, it appears that they did not belong to the manor, but had become
associated with the royal estate through forfeiture, commendation, or whatever.
The soke of any particular manor may, then, include lands of varying status
which were appended to it for administrative convenience.
This
is not the place to review the Nottinghamshire evidence in any detail. In the
light of the importance of the subject, however, a number of comments can be
made on the accounts of the large royal estates in the north of the county. The
Domesday manor of Mansfield encompassed at least three elements which were
almost certainly independent in origin. First, there was the manor of Grimston
with soke in Grimston - probably in fact located in Ompton - Kirton, Willoughby
and Walesby, Besthorpe, and Carlton, and possibly Farnsfield.[47]
The account, however, is duplicated in the entries relating to the manor of
Mansfield where Grimston is called a berewick and its land soke of the same
estate. But the connection was probably only a temporary expedient. Grimston
forms a geographically discrete estate which interlocks with the appurtenances
of the manor of Laxton (figure 13) - the two estates had clearly constituted one organisation at an earlier
period - and was peripheral to Mansfield and subsequently farmed as a separate
estate.[48]
Second, there was Mansfield itself with soke in some fifteen settlements.[49]
The whole formed a fairly tight unit in the west of the wapentake of Bassetlaw.
Its appurtenances may interlock with many of the manors of Roger de Bully in
the same wapentake. Third, there was what was known in the twelfth and
thirteenth century as the soke of Oswaldbeck.[50] It
had a nucleus in the parish of South Wheatley, and was also separately farmed.[51]
None of its elements appears in the summary of the land of Mansfield, and, with
one exception, each entry is given a separate value.[52]
According to the account in the Hundred Rolls, the whole of the wapentake of
Oswaldbeck had originally constituted one estate,[53]
and, indeed, the soke interlocks with the manor of Laneham and the estates of
Roger de Bully (figure 10). It is likely, then, that there were originally
three separate manors, but, like the king's estates in Derbyshire, they were
probably administered together under the manor of Mansfield. Thus, the soke
recorded in Domesday Book is composite and therefore affords no evidence that the
manor had formerly encompassed the whole of the north of the shire.[54]
The other royal estates north of the Trent are less problematic. Bothamsall and
Dunham are apparently independent of Mansfield and its Domesday
satellites, but nevertheless interlock with surrounding
manors.[55]
Finally, Arnold, the smallest of the royal manors, may have been a later
formation in the form in which it appears in 1086.[56]
The description of all its appurtenances are later additions to the text, and
much of the land may have been appended to the manor fairly recently, for the
honey render of the estate had risen between 1066 and 1086. This is unlikely to
indicate an increase in the value, but may suggest that land has been added to
it, and its traditional render had been transferred to the king's hall in
Arnold.
[1] D. R. Roffe, 'Domesday Book and the Local Historian', The Nottinghamshire Historian 37,
(1986), 3-5.
[2] See, for example, P. H. Sawyer, 'Introduction: Early Medieval Eng-lish
Settlement', Medieval Settlement, ed.
P. H. Sawyer, London 1976, 2.
[3] Notts. DB, 1,11; 13. 9,34.
30,42. 1,5; 12. 9,19; 23. 30,56. 5,2; 5. 8,2. 12,11-13. 30,7; 46.
[4] Notts. DB, 10,26. 13,4-5.
30,52. Rutland DB, ELc, 7-8.
[5] Notts. DB, 1,32. 2,10. 5,4.
9,130.
[6] FA iv, 106.
[7] CI i, 225; ii, 231; xvi, 355;
FA iv, 151.
[8] Notts. DB, 10,25.
[9] Notts. DB, 13,4; 5. R.
Thoroton, The Antiquities of
Nottinghamshire ii, reprint Wakefield 1972, 178.
[10] Notts. DB, 5,1.
[11] VCH Notts. i, 218.
[12] Lincs. DB, 14/97; 57/51;
73/6; D. R. Roffe, 'The Lincolnshire Hundred', Landscape History 3, (1981), 31.
[13] D. Michelmore, M. L. Faull, S. Moorhouse, West Yorkshire: an Archaeological Survey to AD 1500, Wakefield
1981, 232.
[14] W. G. Hoskins, Fieldwork in Local
History London 1967, 18, 40-3.
[15] T. Rowley, Villages in the
English Landscape, London 1978, 91-103.
[16] Rowley, Villages, 91.
[17] S659. The charter is the earliest firmly dated reference to Southwell.
However, the eleventh-century document known as 'The Resting Places of the
Saints' records that St Eadburh, probably the abbess of Repton in c.700 (D. H. Farmer, The Oxford Dictionary of Saints, Oxford
1978, 118), was buried at 'Southwell-on-Trent' (D. W. Rollason, 'Lists of
Saints' Resting Places in Anglo-Saxon England', Anglo-Saxon England 7, (1978), 89). Dr Rollason has suggested that
the information for the places identified by a topographical feature was
derived from a source drawn up in the late ninth century (62-3). It is possible,
then, that there was a
foundation at Southwell, and no doubt a considerable settlement nucleus, before
the grant of the estate to York.
[18] See, for example, Lincs. DB,
34/6.
[19] See above.
[20] F. Barlow, The English Church, 1000-1066, 2nd ed.
London 1979, 184.
[21] The church of Barton-on-Humber was a private institution in 1086, but
had its origins in an early monastic foundation (Lincs. DB, 24/13; D. R. Roffe, 'Pre-Conquest Estates and Parish
Boundaries: a Discussion with Examples from Lincolnshire', Studies in Late Saxon Settlement, ed. M. L. Faull, Oxford 1984,
120-2; P. Everson, 'The Pre-Conquest Estate of Ęt Bearuwe in Lindsey', ibid.,
123-7).
[22] See, for example, Sleaford,
ed. C. M. Mahany, D. R. Roffe, Stamford 1979. An analysis of estate nuclei and
churches suggested that the twelfth-century 'new town' of Sleaford was a major
pre-Conquest estate centre, and subsequent excavation in the vicinity of the
church revealed Anglo-Saxon structures.
[23] Chronicon Petroburgense, ed.
T. Stapleton, London 1849, 157-83; C. G. O. Bridgeman, 'The Burton Abbey
Twelfth-Century Surveys', Collections for
a History of Staffordshire, William Salt Archaeological Society 1916,
212-47.
[24] See chapter 5.
[25] Notts. DB, 9,20. 14,5.
[26] Notts. DB, 5,6. 10,64-6.
12,12. 16,12. 20,8. 30,55. The formula is common in the Yorkshire folios where
it is the normal device for indicating the status of a manor before the scribe
resorted to the use of marginal M's. In the rest of the circuit, however, it
appears to have a specific purpose in indicating a vague legal relationship.
[27] Lincs. DB, 57/14. See also Lincs. DB, 14/78; TMS, 52.
[28] G. T. Davies, 'The Anglo-Saxon Boundaries of Sutton and Scrooby,
Nottinghamshire', TTS 87, (1983),
13-22; Roffe, 'Estates and Parish Boundaries', 120; Everson, 'Ęt Bearuwe', 123-7.
[29] Boldon Book, ed. D. Austin,
Chichester 1982, 37.
[30] Notts. DB, 30,49.
[31] See, for example, Lincs. DB,
13/7; 69/15; 1/28; 73/6.
[32] See chapter 5.
[33] Notts. DB, 9,28-30.
[34] Lincs. DB, xxvii-viii.
[35] Chronicon, 157-83; 'Burton
Surveys', 212-47.
[36] Notts. DB, 5,18. 10, 9; 10; 46.
1,15-16. 13,4. 17,11; 13.
[37] Lincs. DB, 1/3, 4; 7/43, 50;
11/3, 4; 12/81; 24/13, 14, 54, 57-8; 26/52; 63/27; 67/4.
[38] H. E. Hallam, Settlement and
Society: a Study in the Early Agrarian History of South Lincolnshire,
Cambridge 1965, 162-6.
[39] Roffe, 'Domesday Book and the Local Historian', 3-5.
[40] See chapter 5.
[41] J. E. A. Jolliffe, 'A Survey of Fiscal Tenements', EcHR 6, (1935-5), 157-71; W. E. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North, London 1979, 50-87.
[42] A. E. B. Owen, 'Halfdic: a
Lindsey Name', Journal of the English
Place-Name Society, (1972), 45-56.
[43] Roffe, 'Estates and Parish Boundaries', 120.
[44] Derbys. DB, 1,11-15; 27-9.
[45] Lincs. DB, 1/15.
[46] Hunts. DB, 1,9. 19,15-22.
D25. See also
soke of Normancross Hundred.
[47] Notts. DB, 1,17-22. Soke of
Grimston 'in the same place' as the manorial caput, appears to be duplicated in a further entry where it is
identified as Ompton (Notts. DB,
1,18; 24).
[48] Notts. DB, 1,24; 27. 12,1-10.
D. Crook, 'The Community of Mansfield from Domesday Book to the Reign of Edward
III', TTS 88, (1984), 14-16.
[49] Notts. DB, 1,23-30.
[50] Notts. DB, 1,31-44.
[51] PNN, 43; Crook, 'Mansfield',
14-16.
[52] Notts. DB, 1,24.
[53] RH ii, 25, 300-1.
[54] M. W. Bishop, 'Multiple Estates in Late Anglo-Saxon Nottingham-shire', TTS 85, (1981), 37-47.
[55] Notts. DB, 1,1-16.
[56] Notts. DB, 1,45-50.