Victoria
County History of Kent Vol. 3
1932 - Introduction
to the Kent Domesday Survey - Page 185
large reduction appears also in Shamwell and Hoo hundreds. Probably,
however, the reduction was more uniform and significant on the lands, of
certain tenants than on the holdings in any particular geographical area.
Thus on the lands of the archbishop fairly consistent and considerable
reductions are recorded, and more occasionally, also on the lands of Odo
bishop of Bayeux. It is on the lands of Rochester, however, that the most
systematic reduction, often of one-half or more, has taken place. Was
there, perhaps,. some special reason for the favouring of Rochester?
No settled relationship can be established among Domesday’s
three chief sets of figures : the assessment, the number of the
ploughlands, actual and potential, and the values at the three periods,
namely at the time of King Edward, at the time of King William, and at the
intervening moment when the Norman tenant received the land (quando
recepit). A few examples, from many available, will establish this
point :
|
|
There is, however, on the other hand, a fairly steady relationship among
the values at the three different periods. A study of the figures will
show in most hundreds a considerable increase. of the value at the time of
King William over the value at the time of King Edward, for example, in
Axton, Faversham, Bromley, Ruxley, Calehill, Chatham, and generally in
other hundreds, an increase which becomes much more significant when
considered tenant by tenant rather than hundred by hundred. The lands of
the archbishop thus show very clearly the increase in regular values.
Probably no one of them, with the possible exception of Finglesham (Flengvessa)
shows a decrease— (there was a special arrangement of some kind in East
Peckham)—and the increase often raises the value to double the T.R.E.
value or even to a higher figure. In Boughton and Mersham, for example,
£15 and £10, respectively, are added to the earlier value. In
addition to this uniform increase in value, Domesday speaks often of the
very heavy rents, much in excess even of the value in the time of King
William, which were actually paid for the lands by the firmarius, reeve,
or other bailiff; thus ten additional pounds above the estimated value
were paid in Bexley, Northfleet, and Godmersham, twenty-six pounds in
Charing. The phrase runs: ‘The manor is valued at so much, nevertheless
it pays (tamen reddit), so much more.’ The further statement, ‘quod
non potest pati,’ common in several other counties,39 does
not appear in the Kentish survey. These rents were derived especially from
some of the manors held in dominio, where a lump sum was evidently
paid from the viii in
33 See p.
212a. 34 See p.
234b. 35 See p. 208a.
36 See p. 210a. 37
See p. 219a. 38 See
p. 219b.
39 For example, Dom. Bk. 1, 40 (Hants) ‘Ferneham
. . . tamen cst ad firmam de xx lib. sed non potest pati.’
|
Previous Page
Page 185 Next Page
For details about the advantages of membership of the Kent
Archaeological Society click
here
To Introduction
to the Kent Domesday Survey page listings
To Contents Page
To
Research To Homepage
Kent Archaeological
Society is a registered charity number 223382
© Kent Archaeological Society June 2006
This website is constructed by
enthusiastic amateurs. Any errors noticed by other researchers will be
to gratefully received so
that we can amend our pages to give as accurate a record as possible.
Please send details to research@kentarchaeology.org.uk
|