KENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY  -- RESEARCH    Studying and sharing Kent's past      Homepage


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