value for the study of the boroughs and the Kentish
laws, and for place-names and Saxon and Norman tenants. Their numerical
statistics agree in the main with Domesday. The information they give will
be considered later.
Geographically, the county shows several striking
characteristics. First, the large subdivisions called lests, laeds, or ‘leths’
in the ‘Domesday Monachorum,’ ‘lests’ in Domesday, which continue
as’ lathes ‘; second, the great number and small size of the hundreds;
and third, the contrast between the highly civilized, thickly settled
parts of Kent, and the inaccessible, sparsely peopled regions of weald and
marsh.
The lests of Kent appear clearly for the first time in the
Survey, although a late Saxon document as to Rochester Bridge refers to
the ‘leth belonging (pertaining) to Aylesford manor,’ and to the ‘leth
belonging to Hollingbourne.’10 The existence of such
divisions of the county is probably indicated, however, in Saxon charters
which refer to the wealds and marshes of the Burhwara, Wearawara, and the
Limenwara of East Kent, wealds and marshes, that is to say, common to the
dwellers in these divisions.11 The reference in Domesday itself12
to the ‘men of the four lests’ who agree upon the ancient customs, has
the ring of antiquity. There is no indication in the Survey of the lest as
a judicial division, but it may be noted that in later times the lest may
be called to sanction ancient customs with regard to the repair of sea
walls.13 The meeting places of the lests are not given,
the reference to Pennenden in the Survey having to do evidently with the
shire meeting.14
The lests in Kent are reckoned in Domesday itself as five
full lests and two half lests, but the ‘Domesday Monachorum’ adds to
the number the lest of Sandwich. In the western part of the county were
the half lests of Middleton and Sutton, and the lest of Aylesford ; in the
eastern part were the four full lests of Borowar lest, Wyewar lest,
Limowar lest, and Eastry lest, to adopt later forms for the multitudinous
spellings of Domesday. Some difficulty arises in arranging the hundreds
within the proper lests because of Domesday’s occasional failure to
state the name of the lest in which the hundred occurs; in such cases,
however, accuracy can usually be obtained by the study of the geographical
position and the later classification of the hundred in question.
Occasionally reasonable doubt still remains, as the following lists show.14a
The half lest of Sutton included the following hundreds :—Achestan
(modern form, Axton), covering also the later Dartford, Wilmington, and
Codsheath hundreds, the last appearing as Codesede in the ‘Domesday
Monachorurn’; Brunlei (Bromley and Beckenham); Grenviz (Blackheath);
Helmestrei (Ruxley) ; Litelai (Little and Lesnes) ; Oistreham (Westerham
and Edenbridge); and Sumerden.
The lest of Elesfort (Aylesford) included the following
hundreds :— Aihorde or Haihorne (Eyhorne); Broteham (Wrotham); Ceteham
(Chatham and Gillingham) ; Essamele (Shamel) ; Hov (Hoo) ; Lavrochesfel
10 Birch, Cartul. Sax. Nos.
1321, 1322. 11 Ibid. For
example, Nos. 248, 496, 507, 539.
12 See p.
203b.
13 For example, Assize R. (P.R.O.), No. 365, m. 73d.
14 See p. 204a. The meeting places may
perhaps be indicated by the name of the lest.
15 See Note 30a below. The following lists
of hundreds agree in the main with Mr. Jolliffe’s (Eng. Hist. Rev. xliv,
612 et seq.). Thus, the hundreds of Sutton, Aylesford, and Milton agree;
there is some question with regard to placing Prestetune, Feleberghe, and
Boltune hundreds in their appropriate lests; special treatment has been
accorded Folkestone, Reculver, Romney, Whitstable, and Fordwich by Mr.
Jolliffe; and Adisham, regarded as a hundred by the Domesday Monachorum,
is omitted.
|