A HISTORY OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE 



Edward's time it had paid 18, but in 1086 it is found debited with 

 30, and an additional payment of 10 from tne mint. The 'ferm' of 

 Derby had likewise been brought up to 30 from 24, while that of 

 Lincoln and Leicester had stood at the former amount before the Con- 

 quest, but had been much increased. The pre-Conquest ' ferm ' of 

 Nottingham most probably included the proceeds of the mint, for follow- 

 ing the rent of the borough lands we read of a payment of 2 ' from 

 two moneyers.' This statement is interesting, for in the twelfth-century 

 pipe rolls we find that when one of the moneyers of a borough ceased to 

 work, a remission of i was made from the 'ferm' of the borough on 

 this account, and the above passage carries this allowance of 1 to a 

 moneyer beyond the Conquest. Moreover the increase in the render of 

 the mint from 2 to 10 ma y fairly be taken to imply that a corres- 

 ponding increase in the trade of the borough had taken place since 1066. 

 The mint at Lincoln, however, rendered 75, and a proportionately 

 greater number of actual coins struck there have come down to us. 



But in addition to its ' ferm ' a borough was usually assessed to the 

 geld in the same fashion as a rural manor, its assessment being repar- 

 titioned among the burgesses. The case of Nottingham is not quite 

 simple. To begin with, the amount of geld cast upon the borough is 

 very small, being only 6 carucates ; it was only 1 2 carucates at Derby, 

 the case of which is parallel in several points with that of Nottingham. 1 

 Then the wording of the survey deserves attention : ' To this borough 

 there belong six carucates of land (assessed) to the king's geld, and one 

 meadow and underwood 6 furlongs in length and 5 in breadth. This 

 land was divided among 38 burgesses, and from the rent of the land and 

 the works of the burgesses rendered 75 shillings and sevenpence.' Now 

 this entry does not read like a statement of assessment of the borough as 

 a whole, but has rather the form of a description of an agricultural estate 

 ' belonging ' indeed to the borough, but held in fact by only a relatively 

 small number of its burgesses. As the total number of the latter had 

 been 173 we see clearly enough the presence of a landholding class 

 within the urban community, and we seem entitled to ask the question 

 whether the fiscal responsibility of the borough had not been borne in 

 practice by those burgesses only who possessed a share in the borough lands, 

 especially in view of the reappearance of a precisely similar phenomenon 

 at Derby. For the gulf is wide between the assessment of Nottingham 

 and Derby at 6 and 12 carucates, and that of Cambridge at 100 hides, 

 of Bedford and Huntingdon at 50 each, and (to return to the Danelaw) 

 of Stamford at 150 carucates. Lastly, later in the same column, there 

 occurs an entry which, to all appearance, relates to the geldable land of 

 the borough ' Burgenses habent vi carucatas terra ad arandum et xx 

 bordarios et xiii carucas.' Here, then, we see the above 6 fiscal carucates 

 represented by an equal number of field carucates actually cultivated by 

 the burgesses and their dependents. 



1 V. C. H. Derb. \, 308. 



236 



