in Maidstone hundred, rated at one sulung, with 4 ploughs, and valued at £41. The lowy included Tonbridge castle and manor, of which there is no mention in the Survey, but to which the ‘Domesday Monachorum’ probably refers,⁶²  and Hadlow, which Richard held of the bishop of Bayeux, which was rated at 6 sulungs, and valued at £30. The lowy was in later times surrounded on the south by Washlingstone hundred, but was considered as a separate liberty. Tonbridge castle and manor Richard got from the archbishop of Canterbury in return for a similar territory and the castle of Brion in Normandy.⁶³  The exchange must have antedated the Survey since the lowy of Tonbridge is mentioned on many occasions as in Richard’s possession. The lowy proper formed a wooded region with scanty population, probably all in the weald, with a castle built at the point where the Medway divided into five streams, thus forming a fortified post of some importance between the castles of the rapes of Sussex, and Hugh de Montfort’s Saltwood, and the strongly fortified Dover. Many other lands also are described by Domesday as in the lowy, although their physical location was far removed from it, and the tenements were held by Richard of various lords. The phrase runs usually: ‘what Richard de Tonbridge has in the lowy is worth’ some certain amount, usually stated in money, sometimes in swine rents. Occasionally the tenements are stated in sulungs, or said to be de silva. Many of these tenements were small ; in one case only 15d. worth being held, in other cases the value running up to £10 worth in Otford in Axton hundred, or £15 worth in Wrotham.⁶⁴  The distance of some of these holdings from the lowy would make their inclusion in it necessarily a matter of rating. They had no physical connection, as a rule, with the castle and the land around it. Once the outlying tenement is described as a dene. These lands were held of the archbishop, of the bishop of Rochester, and of Odo bishop of Bayeux.
   Some interest may attach to the values of the lands of the great tenants. As Mr. Corbett has pointed out,⁶⁵  such figures are more enlightening than a mere enumeration of manors, or of the amount of their assessment, which may have been merely a matter of privilege, especially in Kent where assessment was low. The royal manors in Kent were valued in the time of King William at £390 or £360, according to one’s acceptance in the case of Dartford of the French or English valuation.⁶⁶  Approximately stated, the manors of the archbishop were valued at £1,560, the manors of St. Augustine at £593,⁶⁷ the manors of Rochester at £188, the manor of Odo bishop of Bayeux at £1,613, the manors of Hugh de Montfort at £185, and the lands of Richard of Tonbridge at £75. Certainty with regard to these figures is impossible, since Domesday does not make it clear whether the lands of subtenants are included in the valuation of the manor or should be reckoned separately. I have as a rule reckoned such values as separate items, and the totals may therefore be somewhat too high.
   When the layer, if it may be so called, of Norman tenants is stripped off the lands described in the Survey, and the Saxon tenants who held in the
   ⁶²  Under Derente: ‘et x s. habet Ricardus infra castellum suum.’
   ⁶³  Hasted, Hut, of Kent (ed. 1798), v, 174.
   ⁶⁴  See p. 210b.        ⁶⁵  Cam6ridge Mediaeval Hist. v, 506.
   ⁶⁶  I have not included the £15 valuation of Hawley (Hagelei) as it seems to appear again in the lands of Odo.
   ⁶⁷ I  have included the terre villanorum of Northbourne as separate items.