church lands, and recovered many lands which he had appropriated. The best accounts of the Pennenden meeting are given by Eadmer, who describes at length the greatness of Odo’s power and his appropriations of lands and customs, especially from Canterbury,⁵⁶ and by a chronicler of Rochester.⁵⁷ The versions differ somewhat, chiefly in the recording of the names of the manors reclaimed by Lanfranc, but agree on the importance of the occasion. On the day on which the pleading was finished there remained no outstanding claims on any lands, all encroachments on church lands in Kent by Norman lords having, apparently, been taken into consideration, as well as the misdeeds of Odo bishop of Bayeux. The detailed account of the meeting runs as follows: On the appointment of Lanfranc as archbishop in 1071 it was felt that redress must be gained for lands taken from the church, and the king therefore bade all the county sit without delay,⁵⁸  both the French born men of the county, and also, especially, the English who were learned in the ancient laws and customs. From this statement it appears clearly that William had in mind more than the recovery of the Canterbury estates, and was evidently also making an opportunity for a statement of royal and archiepiscopal rights in the county. The totus comitatus was detained for three days while the affairs of the meeting were settled. The lands in dispute are listed by Eadmer in a very long statement,⁵⁹  many more being mentioned than the few referred to in Domesday, and the account then continues with a most interesting statement regarding Kentish customs which may well be compared with the Domesday statement of the leges regis. Many questions having arisen, the chronicler states, with regard to the royal and archiepiscopal customs, Agelric of Chichester, most ancient and learned in the law, was brought in a cart by the king’s command to the meeting—place, to which came other great men : Richard of Tonbridge, Hugh de Montfort, William de Arcis, and Geoffrey bishop of Coutances, the presiding officer of the meeting. It was demonstrated that the king had no customary rights in the lands of the church of Canterbury except three, for which forfeitures were due to the king—first, if a man of the archbishop dug in the royal way which ran from city to city; second, if anyone cut a tree on the royal way and threw it across the way, and a third custom (tertia consuetudo talis est) if anyone shed blood in the royal way or committed homicide, if he were taken in the act. These forfeitures, it will be noticed, agree closely with the three which the ‘men of the four lests’ allow to the king in Domesday, and, it may well be that Domesday repeats the original statement made at Pennenden, since it seems unlikely that the men of the lests should be called together again for a second statement. The account then continues with a list of the customs of the archbishop in the royal and comital lands, which agrees in part with the further Domesday statement of customs—for example, in the matter of the fine for adultery— but it is not so full, and does not notice customs in which Canterbury had no
   ⁵⁶  Eadmer, Hist. Novorum (Rolls Ser.), pp. 16, 171.
   ⁵⁷  Reg. Roffense, p. 27. Compare Wilkins, Concilia, i, 323; Anglia Sacra, 1, 334; Bigelow, Placita inglo Normannica, p. 4 et seq.
   ⁵⁸  For the king’s writ, see Davis, Regesta, No. 50, and Bigelow, op. cit. 4.
   ⁵⁹  The list is Ratulfe, Sandwich, Rateburg, Wedetune, Sunning monastery, Saltonde, with the borough of Hethe, Langport, Niwendenne, Rokinge, Detlinge, Prestitune, Sunderherste, Carhethe [for Earhethe ?], Orpintune, Einesford, four prebends in Broche, Niwentune, Stokes, and Devintune, with lands in other counties and 60s. worth of pasture in Grean. Frachenham is added later. Domesday and the ’Domesday Monachorum‘ refer to Sundhersce, Langeport, Orpintone (3 juga), Holingeborde, and Estoches (a Rochester manor).