The Lathe of Aylesford in 975

( 7 ) THE LATHE OF AYLESFORD IN 975. BY GORDON WARD, M.D., E.S.A. INTRODUCTION. It chanced one day that the writer made a list of the manors which contributed to the upkeep of Rochester Bridge, as these are set out in the Textus Roffensis. It was noted that these places were not Usted in any haphazard order but in the order of the Hundreds in which they were situated ; first of all those in one Hundred, then those in another, and so on. Since we have practically no record of the Hundreds of Kent, or of any other county, before 1086, and since the Textus Ust was clearly a hundred years or so older, it seemed worth while to foUow up the clue. Hence this essay. THE DOMESDAY LATHES AND HUNDREDS. Our first comprehensive view of the administrative divisions of Saxon Kent is in the pages of the Domesday survey of 1086-7, although this was drawn up after twenty years of Norman influence. In it we find, in the first place, the Shire and the shire court meeting by custom at Pinnenden in mid-Kent. It was here, one supposes, that the Commissioners of the Conqueror came to receive those returns on which the Domesday Book was later based, and to add to them sworn evidence of the King's own rights in the county. Those who swore to these rights included " the men of the lathes of East Kent." These lathes were large subdivisions of the county, of which there were two in West Kent and five in the eastern division of the shire. In addition to these there was a smaU area freed from all caU to other lathes, namely, the port of Sandwich which was a lathe and Hundred mitseK(F.<7.#.,in., 261). At a lower administrative level were the Hundreds, of which several were combined to make a lathe. Some of the 8 THE LATHE OF AYLESFORD IN 975. Hundreds were in turn spUt up into boroughs, which at a later date sometimes held their own courts. But the Hundreds, and not the lathes or boroughs, were the chief administrative sub-divisions of the county. Their courts were in direct relationship with those of the county, as is well shown in the Domesday dispute about Badlesmere. The men of the Hundred reported that this manor belonged to St. Augustine, while the tenant disputed this (V.C.H., hi., 236). The shire court gave judgment that Badlesmere belonged to the Abbey in the time of King Edward and that the tenant's claim must be rejected (V.C.H., Ui., 246). This is an example of a case taken up from the Hundred to the shire court. The opposite procedure was also perfectly regular. As early as 1072 we have an example in the great case of Archbishop Lanfranc versus Bishop Odo concerning the stolen lands of the churches. A manuscript drawn up at the hearing of this case at Pinnenden has come down to us (Cotton, Aug. II. 36) and contains the words " Fecit archiepiscopus Lanfranchus ahos clamores super episcopum et super Hugonem sed in hundretis debent diffiniri"—Archbishop Lanfranc made other claims on the Bishop and on Hugo but they ought to be settled in the Hundreds. This system of reference by the Hundred to the Shire and by the shire court to the Hundred seems to have been the normal procedure at the end of the Saxon period. It leaves no place for the intervention of any court of the lathe, nor have we any knowledge that courts were ever held for the great Domesday lathes of Kent. Nor do these lathes appear in our later history except as coUecting areas for aids and subsidies, for the organization of the MiUtia, and for like purposes. It would seem that for certain purposes it was necessary for various Hundreds to act together but that these purposes were rarely if ever judicial or such as to require the holding of a lathe court. It is part of the purpose of this essay to show that the Hundreds of the Lathe of Aylesford were jointly responsible for the upkeep of Rochester Bridge, a burden too large for any single Hundred but yet not important enough to be a charge upon the whole county. THE LATHE OF AYLESFORD IN 975. 9 THE USE OF THE WORD LATHE. We shaU presently meet with two different areas for each of which we have no other name than " the lathe of Aylesford." This is unfortunate and makes it very necessary to seek for some idea as to what the Saxons meant when they used the word lathe. It appears first in a compound with the word geoc or ioc, meaning a yoke, the fourth part of a suling. Thus we have : In A.D. 805. An geocled (B. 321). In A.D. 811. An iocled (B. 332). In A.D. 812. An ioclet (B. 341). At a later period we have two latin forms of this compound : In A.D. 875. An iocleta (B. 539). In A.D. 946. An ivclaete (B. 813). Domesday Book has some similar compounds of " lathe," such as Wiwarlet, but the Winchester scribes commonly preferred the objectionable latinization " lest" and even went so far, in their ignorance of aU Saxon custom, as to speak of the " Lest of Wiwarlet." This word Lest has unhappily obtained a more modern currency for which it is difficult to find excuse, in pubUcations which it would be discourteous to specify. But the Domesday Monachorum, in which we see more clearly the Anglo-Saxon of the original Hundred returns has always Wiwarlaed, Limwarlaed, etc. (V.C.H., in., 262). In the Saxon charters the word occurs but rarely except in the compound already mentioned. In 975 we have, as wiU appear later, the word " laethe " used of the Hundred of Eythorne and of the manor of Aylesford. At the same period we meet with " laeth " in reference to what is quite probably, but not certainly, the Hundred of Bromley. These are Kent charters but there is also a single example of the use of this word in a Somerset charter (Kemble, 897) in which " threo motlaethu " means three lathe moots, the right to hold them being conceded to the town or manor of Taunton. 10 THE LATHE OF AYLESFORD IN 975. In post-conquest documents we have the Lathe of Dymchurch, a court held for a part of Romney Marsh and primarily concerned with the maintainance of sea waUs, etc., in the northern hah of the marsh. It had also, however, the very unusual privilege of appointing magistrates for the area. It is possible also that the famiUar Court Leet held for view of frank pledge and for other purposes would have been caUed a Court Lathe by the Saxons. In the case of Romney Marsh it is the court itseU which is caUed a lathe but in the expression Court Leet the second word would necessarily apply to a district and not to a court. This sort of application is also seen in the case of the Lathe of Hastings, known as the Rape of Hastings in Domesday Book. In connection with this we find the foUowing expressions : Ledtschet (lathe shot or scot)—Cal. Doc. in France, 42. Coram le Ledh, and Coram Lede apud Setelescumbe, and Multis aliis de Hundredes et del ledh—(Hist. MSS. Penshurst, i., 34, 39). In other counties the word Lathe, or one very similar, occurs with fair frequency, for example, an estate near Norwich is called the Lathes in 1428 (Norfolk Arch. Soc, xv., 116) and in Norfolk Place Names (W. Rye) are Usted Lath Street in SaxUngham and Leaths near Burnham Overy. No doubt similar examples could be added from other counties, although one cannot be sure that aU are of the same origin. We may deduce from the evidence already brought forward that (1) any district without regard to the particular purpose for which it formed a unit might be caUed a lathe, and (2) that this name might also be used only for the court held for a particular district, or (3) it might be used indifferently for either the district or the court. In the county of Kent alone the foUowing were at one time or another designated lathes, (a) the yokes, (b) the Hundreds, (c) the court of Romney level, (d) the great Domesday sub-divisions of the county, and (e) the town of Sandwich. There could scarcely be clearer evidence that the word Lathe did not originaUy imply THE LATHE OF AYLESFORD IN 975. 11 any specific sort of unit but merely a territorial division, or the court of that division, in which one of the many processes of government or taxation was at the time exercised. THE SCHEDULE OP CONTRIBUTORS TO ROCHESTER BRIDGE. There were nine piers to Rochester bridge and the contributors were arranged in groups according to the pier or piers for which they were responsible. Each group had to provide one or more piers, to set in position the necessary uprights, and to plank a stated part of the footway of the bridge itself. One group took two piers, every other group took only one. There are thus eight groups of contributors for the nine piers. This method of arrangement persists throughout the various versions and emendations of the original Saxon schedule, which is to be found in the Textus Roffensis but not in Hearn's edition thereof. The fuU Saxon form is given by Birch (Cart. Sax., 1322) and by Lambarde (Perambulation of Kent, edition of 1826, p. 347). The latter gives a translation. Birch (1321) gives also a latin version from the Textus. In a register of Christ Church, Canterbury, of the time of Prior Henry of Eastry (1285-1331) there is a copy of an amended version which perhaps dates from rather before his time. This is now among the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum (Galba E.4, fol. 20). Miss Janet Becker in her Rochester Bridge, 1387-1856, deals splendidly with the later history of the bridge, and she quotes a schedule of contributors of the year 1343, by which time the pre-conquest system was breaking down and several of the contributory manors could not be identified. The foUowing translation of the Saxon schedule is based upon that of Lambarde, but on certain doubtful points Miss Dorothy Whitelock has kindly given her views. This is the bridge work at Rochester Here are named the lands, the men whereof shaU work. First the bishop of the city taketh on the end, to make the land pier ; and three rods to plank and THE LATHE OF AYLESFORD IN 975. three supports to place, which is (by contributions) from BorcsteaUe and from Cucclestane and from Frinondesbyrig and from Stoce. Then the second pier belongs to GylUngeham and to Caetham, and one rod to plank and three supports to place. Then the third pier again belongs to the bishop, and two rods and a half to plank and three supports to place (by contributions) from HeaUingan and from TrotescUue and from Meallingan and from FUote and from Stane and from Pinindene and from Falchenham. Then is the fourth pier the King's, and three rods and a haU to plank and three supports to place (by contributions) from Aeglesforda and from aU that laethe that lieth thereto and from Uf anhyUe and from Aclea and from the Smalanlande and from Cusintune and from Dudeslande and from Gisleardeslande and from Wuldeham and from Burhham and from Aecclesse [here a whole Une is erased in the original] and from Horstede and from Fearnlege and from Caerstane and from Cealce and from Hennhystae and from Aedune. Then is the fifth pier the archbishop's, belonging to Wroteham and to Maegthanstane and to Wohringabyran and to Netlestede and to the two Pecchams and to Haeselholte and to Maeranwyrthe and to LiUanburnan and to Swanatune and to Offaham and to Dictune and to Westerham, and four rods to plank and three supports to place. Then is the sixth pier belonging to HoUnganburnan and to aU that laethe, and four rods to plank and four supports to place. Then is the seventh and the eighth pier belonging to Howaran lande to work, and four rods and a half to plank and six supports to place. THE LATHE OF AYLESFORD IN 975. 13 Then is the ninth pier the Archbishop's, which is the land pier at the west end, belonging to Flyote and to his CUue and to Hehham and to Denetune and to Melantune and to Hludesdune and to Meapeham and to Snodilande and to BerUngan and and to Peadleswyrthe and aU the men of the dens, and four rods to plank and three supports to place. There are certain obvious errors of the copyist in this, for example, a redupUcated " and " in the last paragraph, and " four supports " for " three supports " (which is the number in other versions) in the care of HoUingboume. Hennhystae is certainly Hennhyrst and Caerstane should be Taerstane. But the greatest difficulty arises from the fact that a whole Une of the Textus Roffensis has been erased and thus certain names have been lost. These names are fortunately preserved in the version of Galba E.4, which fails, however, to record the interest of the King, and of his ancient lathe of Aylesford, in the pier in question. There foUows a translation from the latin of Galba E.4 : The fourth pier requires three supports and the planking of three rods, and this the men of Borgham ought to do from six sulings, and of Woldeham with Robert Biset and his partners and with Robert Neue from three sulings, of Achle one suUng, of Henherste half a suling, of Honden the quarter part of one suUng, of Cusinton hah a suUng, of Boueheld half a suUng, of Echles 25 acres, of Therstan one suling, of Farlegh one suling, of Lose one suling, of LiUinton two suUngs, of Stokebere two sulings, of GUselardelond, of Sinelond, of Dulelond, of Lichebundelond, of Horsted, of Chelke. It is clear that the spelling of several places in the above is very corrupt but we have four names which are not in the Saxon schedule and which may weU be those which were erased. These are Lose (Loose), LiUinton (Linton), Stokebere (Stockenbury in E. Peckham) and Lichebundelond (not identified). 14 THE LATHE OF AYLESFORD IN 976. THE DATE OP THE SAXON SCHEDULE. The date of its entry in the Textus Roffensis may well be about 1115, but even then the clerk was uncertain about some of the names which he copied and affords us no clue to the date of the original which he had before him. WaUenberg (Kentish Place Names, 302) makes the acute suggestion " about 975 " and, since he was probably judging on etymological grounds, his view is entitled to aU respect. It is borne out by the internal evidence. The first and third piers were repairable by the Bishop of Rochester and the charge was spread over certain named manors which belonged to him. One of these is MaUing which he did not obtain until between 942 and 946 (B., 779). Another is Fawkham which came at last to the Bishop under the wiU of Byrhtric which Thorpe (p. 500) dates 950 and Birch (1132/33) " about 964." The possession of Fawkham was much debated, by violence and by action in the King's court and before the shire (B. 1296, etc.). It seems rash to suppose that it passed finally into the Bishop's hands before 973 at the earUest. Thus the schedule can hardly be much earher than 975. Nor is it likely to be later than 995 in which year the King granted Wouldham to Rochester (Kemble, 688). In the schedule Wouldham stiU pays to the King's pier and not to those of the Bishop. We thus arrive at a date between 973 and 995. This fits in so weU with WaUenberg's suggestion that we may well accept " about 975 " as the date of the schedule which the Rochester clerk copied into the Textus Roffensis more than 100 years later. THE MAP OP THESE LANDS. The next step is to enter these lands on a map and it would be enormously tedious to specify how each identification had been arrived at. The majority of the places mentioned were manors which, as is usual in Kent, were coterminous with parishes which have maintained their names and boundaries ever since. Certain other places wiU be dealt with later as occasion requires ; some remain unidentified. The map herewith shows aU that are known THE LATHE OF AYLESFORD IN 975. 15 and it shows also the whole of the lathe of Aylesford as we know it from Domesday Book: containing aU the bridge manors except (a) Westerham, which is far removed, with most of the lathe of Sutton intervening, and (b) a group of four contiguous manors of the Bishop of Rochester in (3 HOW A RAN PART Or CLIUE GXLLINOE ^s i <./ 5 > 0 ce HAM UJ \STANE' 1 LANDt fir v ( ,'(S0UTH) ^ FLIOTt S