4 An Elizabethan Survey and Domesday Book, [ch. 



are mentioned \ The Fornesseta of Domesday is clearly Forncett 

 St Mary. Galgrym was in the south-west of that parish 2. Twanton 

 lay in St Peter's, east of the main Norwich road, and seems also to 

 have included precincts I. and II. West of Twanton lay Keklington. 

 Southgate must have been the row of houses opposite Southgate 

 common. Middleton lay midway between the east and west 

 boundaries of southern Twanton^ Moorgate was west of Middleton 

 and south of Lovington. Deducting Southgate, Moorgate, Loving- 

 ton, and Middleton from the greater Twanton there is left the lesser 

 Twanton, near Twanton Green. 



The presence of so many clusters of houses within the vill 

 suggests, though it does not prove, that the vill, considered as a 

 territorial unit, may not have existed from the time of earliest settle- 

 ment in the same form in which we find it in 1565^ In the absence 

 of clearer evidence, however, it is impossible to trace the course of 

 the territorial development of the vill, if indeed such a development 

 occurred. 



The existence of two churches within the vill at so early a period 

 as 1086 strengthens the impression of an original lack of unity^ 



^ The earliest appearances of these names that I have noted are, Moorgate, Account Roll 

 of 1376 (Appendix IX., xlvii.); Lovington, Court Roll of 1455. We read of 'Lovington 

 Moor,' 'Lovington Heads,' and 'Lovington Hill,' but it is not clear that in the fifteenth 

 century there was any house in Lovington, though possibly the houses in X. i or X. 2 

 were included in this district. 



2 Whether there were two distinct settlements within thje parish of Forncett St Mary 

 corresponding to the two groups of houses, is doubtful. In Domesday Book the name 

 Fornesseta appears to include both hamlets ; while later the hamlet of Galgrym is sometimes 

 distinguished. But if Blomefield, Hist, of Norfolk, v. 224, n. 7, is right in deriving 

 Galgrym from Galley (Gallows) Green, the name is certainly of late origin. The proximity 

 of the hamlets points to the conclusion that they were originally a single settlement. The 

 situation of this settlement was peculiarly favourable, for it was close to broad, rich meadows 

 and to fertile arable. 



' Blomefield asserts {^Hist. of Norfolk, v. 224) that Middleton was another name for 

 Forncett St Mary, but there can be no doubt that he was mistaken in this, and that Middleton 

 was in the south-east part of St Peter's parish. For (i) Middleton Green lay here; (2) in 

 Domesday, Middleton is mentioned only in connection with a tenement held by Earl Alan of 

 Richmond. Now, from a ' Rental of Richmond Rents pertaining to the manor of Forncett, 

 2 and 3 Philip and Mary,' we learn that the land held of Richmond and situated in Middleton 

 was west of Middleton Green. (3) The Survey shows that there were no Richmond lands in 

 St Mary's parish; nor in any of the records is there anything to suggest the identity of 

 Middleton and St Mary's. 



* In this connection it may be worth noting that the northern boundary of Forncett 

 St Peter, between St Mary's and Westwood, seems somewhat more like a late boundary — 

 perhaps a parish boundary — than like a boundary fixed at the time of settlement. It is not 

 determined by any natural feature but followed a road across the open fields. It apparently 

 cut through the hamlet of Keklington, since, in 1565, there was no break in the closely 

 built row of houses that stretched north and south of this line, along the border of the waste. 



•■* See Appendix III., v., vi. The church in 'Fornesseta,' known in later records as 



