The Custumal of Kent

THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT By FELIX HULL, B.A., Ph.D. (i) GENERAL SURVEY Tradition has it that at the Eyre of Kent held before John de Berwicke in 1293 formal acceptance was given to a body of local custom, primarUy concerned with gavelkind, which coUectively is known as " the Custumal of Kent". Undoubtedly much of the contents of this codification is older than the thirteenth century, indeed it embodies traditions of pre-Conquest date, but it has for centuries been formaUy associated Avith the year 1293, even to the extent that it appears in one edition of the Statutes of the Realm under that year. As one might expect, there are a number of different texts of this document and a complete analysis of these resulting from careful coUating is stUl awaited. It is the purpose of this article to discuss in particular two such texts, stUl in Kent, and to relate them to three others which have been printed. Of the five versions under consideration four probably date from the fifteenth century or later and it is because of the greater antiquity of the fifth text that this paper has been prepared. Some discussion of the general background may, however, be of interest. Whether or not the year 1293 is of any special significance, it is clear that the Kentish custom had the authority of law during the later Middle Ages, and it is known that at least two copies of the Custumal were preserved at Canterbury, one at Christchurch and the other at St. Augustine's.1 Another copy existed among the MSS. at Lincoln's Inn. In 1536 Tottel pubhshed a version of the text and this was foUowed in 1576 by Lambarde's version incorporated in the Perambulation. Lambarde records that his version came from." an ancient and faire written RoU, that was given me by Maister George Multon my Father in lawe, and wliich sometime belonged Baron Hales . . ."2 He also regarded his copy as of the time of Edward I, but without further evidence this cannot be substantiated. The issue of these two texts brought the customs to the attention of the able school of seventeenth century antiquaries and also led to no little puzzlement in view of the marked differences between Tottel and Lambarde. Sir Henry Spelman would have none of them, questioning the 1 The former is Register B, fol. 419 at Canterbury Cathedral Library; the other was quoted by Somner in his work on gavelkind. 2 Perambulation (1826 edn.), p. 613. 148 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT authenticity of both versions.1 Somner also investigated this question and had access to the St. Augustine text of the Custumal,2 which varied in some respects from either of the others. The next significant work was carried out by Thomas Robinson who produced his book The Common Law of Kent or the Customs of Gavelkind in 1741. Robinson brought his legal training and also very considerable historical understanding to bear on the topic and pubhshed not merely a fresh edition of Lambarde's text but also the variants in Tottel and in the Lincoln's Inn MS. He clearly accepted Lambarde as the authority and was partly directing his attention to the rehabilitation of the Custumal in the hght of Spelman's attack. This, however, was not the limit of his interest for he tehs us how he went to the lengths of examining the pubhc records, discovering the records of the Eyre of 1293, and searching the parhament roUs, aU without success. He therefore concluded that Lord Coke in referring to the Statutum de Consuetudinibus Kancie had overstated the case but that " whether Authentick in its Original, or not," the Custumal " has received such a Sanction from its Antiquity; as to have been admitted in Evidence to a Jury, even from Mr. Lambard's copy."3 Little further interest seems to have been aroused after Robinson until this century with the preparation of volume 3 of Victoria County History. Dr. GUbert Slater in dealing with Social and Economic History felt that a copy which he met in the Cathedral Library, Canterbury, was so important as to warrant a fuU translation. He wrote of it in these terms: " The best and oldest copy is in the hbrary of Canterbury Cathedral" (Register B, fol. 419), but W.Page, the general editor, added a footnote " Unfortunately aU the copies of the Custumals of Kent are corrupt."4 In point of fact, whUe Register B contains some earlier material, the hand of the Custumal is early fifteenth century and if indeed this is our earhest and most accurate text it is stUl weU over a century in time from the reputed acceptance of 1293. In fact the Canterbury MS. may embody older tradition or be a copy of an older text, but it is stUl a considerable distance in time from the Eyre of Kent and John de Berwicke. Now, it so happens that in 1897 the Rev. C. E. Woodruff examined the records of the borough of Queenborough and that he wrote a not 1 Treatise of Feuds, a. 14, quoted by Robinson, Gavelkind, p. 278. 2 Robinson, Op. cit., p. 285. 3 Robinson, pp. 279-80. Its position as a statute, as with many other early codifications, has been uncertain, but while Ruffhead rejected it for his edition of the Public Statutes the edition of 1810 prints it among "statutes of uncertain date." * Victoria County History, Vol. I l l , p. 325. _ Unfortunately Slater did not enumerate the copies known to him or give any indication of theh' approximate date. 149 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT whoUy accurate account of these for Archceologia Cantiana.1 Among them he noted especiaUy what he termed a " Statute Book." Among its contents he hsted consuetudines Kancie. The most pubhc spirited action by the corporation of Queenborough in depositing their records in the County Archives Office at Maidstone has enabled this volume to be examined more fuUy as indeed it warrants.2 The volume is quarto with late fifteenth century veUum covered oak-board binding and contains 233 folios.3 Its contents include an early calendar, copies of many early statutes and documents of hke character, such as the consuetudines, the two legal treatises of Ralph de Hengham, one of which is interpolated in a much later hand, a register of writs partly in the hand of the statutes and partly later and finaUy a number of entries of admission to freedom at Queenborough during the latter part of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The importance of this document to the present article is that the handwriting for the statutes and simUar items cannot be of later date than o. 1325. No statute is included of later date than 1324 and since that one is the modus tenendi visum franciplegii which is included among " statutes of uncertain date " we cannot be certain that it was not in fact earher than the date sometimes accorded to it. We may say therefore that this Queenborough version of the custumal is nearly a century earher than the Canterbury text and a mere thirty years later than the Eyre of Kent. On this basis alone, therefore, it must be regarded as of significance and variations in its text from those of a later date may point more nearly to the authentic tradition.4 (ii) COMPARISON OE TEXTS On comparison of the Queenborough, Canterbury, Tottel's, Lincoln's Inn and Lambarde texts, aU of which are in Anglo-French, we may say that there are hi aU thirty-seven clauses, thirty-five of which in some form or other are common to aU versions. This is not to say that they are in any way identical but that some form of clause is found in aU five texts. On a more detaUed basis, and for this purpose mere variations of spelling or order of words are ignored as common enough with scribal copying, we may say that only nine clauses are substantiaUy the same in each text, a hint that we are faced with very definite variation from source to source. Fortunately this situation is not quite as serious as at first appears because there is a strong indication of two independent traditions. 1 Arch. Cant., XXII, 169-188. 2 K.A.O., Qb/AZ. 3 Woodruff gives " 115 velum leaves ", by no reckoning can this be accurate. * Nothmg is known of the early history of this book, part of which antedates the town of Queenborough by many years. 150 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT On examination of the two early texts, Queenborough and Canterbury, we find identity of clause in fourteen cases only, for the other twenty-three there is substantial variation of wording although the meaning is not necessarUy affected. On the other hand in only two clauses does the Tottel version vary significantly from the Queenborough text whUe the Lincoln's Inn version foUows Queenborough in aU but seven clauses. This strongly suggests that the Queenborough text or something very hke it was the base for both Tottel's version and the Lincoln's Inn MS. As against these there is substantial agreement between the Canterbury text and Lambarde the last named only coinciding with Queenborough for thirteen out of thirty-seven clauses. AU start in much the same way though Canterbury and Lambarde add the words e les custumes, but then there is a startling discrepancy between Lambarde and aU the other texts. The sentence allowes en Eire John de Berewicke, e ses compagnions, Justices on Eire, en Kent le 21 an le Roy Ed. fitz le Roy Henrie appears only on Lambarde. Is this, in fact, part of the origmal text or a later gloss? That some authority stands behind the custumal is clear, but there is no evidence beyond this clause in a late and almost certainly corrupt text hnking it with John de Berewicke; one can only say at this stage that the tradition is uncertain. The next clause contains one of the most interesting and important variant readings. Queenborough reads: Ces est asaver qe totes les cours gavelilcenders seient frauns ausibien com les autres frauns courz de Engleterre. This is foUowed by Tottel though Lincoln's Inn omits the first phrase and begins soient frankz . . . Both Canterbury and Lambarde read Ce est a saver qe totes les cors de Kenteys seyent fraunes. This clause has caused much discussion. The claim to personal freedom was a matter for litigation in the middle ages and cases are cited by Robinson in support of the Canterbury reading. On the other hand, as he fairly states, Somner proved the existence of vUleinage in Kent.1 A WUl which has more than once been cited is that of Sir WUham Septvans, dated 1407, in wliich he manumits his bondmen.2 Moreover anyone who examines the Kent Domesday wUl be faced by additional evidence of personal servitude, although admittedly the classes of society vary somewhat from certain other counties. On the other hand there is undoubted evidence that tenure by gavelkind in. Kent was essentiaUy freehold tenure, even if of a somewhat debased character and the thesis developed by J. E. A. JoUiffe presents a reasonable distinction between the bondmen of the " inland " and the free gavelkinders of the " outland."3 To suggest that Kentish birth made a 1 Robinson, pp. 276-7. 2 K.A.O., PRO 32/1, f.16. 3 See J. E. A. JoUiffe, The Jutes. 151 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT man free ipso facto, although allowed on occasion, is difficult to sustain against accumulated evidence, but to state that gavelkinders were free is a clear statement of a fact. The custumal, moreover, is essentiaUy concerned with gavelkind tenure and the " Kenteys" reading seems both out of place as weU as difficult; aU the Kentings were not gavelkinders nor were they free; aU gavelkinders in Kent were free, though presumably not necessarUy Kentings. It is felt therefore that the form foUowed by Queenborough and Tottel is probably older and more authentic, the alternative being a natural enough development which has led to considerable confusion and indeed to htigation. Differences continue in the next clause which is only given by Canterbury and Lambarde and which relates to escheators and denies the obhgation by Kentishmen to choose such a royal officer. WUliam Page, as editor of the Kent V.C.H. saw the difficulty of this clause and wrote: " In 1293, when these customs are said to have been aUowed, the King had two escheators, one north and one south of the Trent. Neither of them could have been chosen by the men of Kent, but the paragraph may relate to some subordinate officer in Kent. It is possible, however, that escheturs should be read ascheteurs and the passage may refer to purveyance."1 The fact that Queenborough ignores this clause emphasizes its suspect nature and makes the alternative suggestion less acceptable. By 1301 the position of the escheator was defined2 and in 1340 the number was regulated according to the customs prevailing in 1327,3 which is generaUy regarded as one per county. It is surely understandable that an additional clause was added to the custumal once the position in regard to this royal officer was determined and equaUy that a text based on a decision of 1293 should omit aU reference to the appointment of escheator. After this the texts foUow each other more closely and one might say that the additions found, especiaUy in Lambarde, tend to be explanatory in character and to aid in the exact definition of the point at issue. An example of this appears in clause 8, the famous one which relates to the gavelkinder attainted of felony. Queenborough and Canterbury as the oldest texts foUow each other and finish with these words, " and his heir immediately after his death shaU have by inheritance aU the lands and tenements which he holds by gavelkind in fee and inheritance." Tottel, Lincoln's Inn and Lambarde aU add the rather unnecessary phrase: " And he shall hold them by the same services and customs as his ancestors held them." The next clause also has additions of much the same kind in Lambarde, the phrase " of one half of aU the lands and tenements which her husband held i V.O.H., Vol. I l l , p. 325. 2 29 Ed. I. 3 14 Edw. I l l , c. 8. 152 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT of gaveUdnd nature in fee " being omitted from Queenborough and Canterbury since it is in anticipation of a later clause. Clauses 10 and 11 also present difficulties for whUe the form given by Queenborough is foUowed by Tottel and Lincoln's Inn, Lambarde makes additions and Canterbury omits several hnes. This last is almost certainly a scribal error of a common enough kind. The first phrase ends with the word chateus and this is also the last word of the omitted portion, so that one may surmise that the scribe broke off bis transcription and then inadvertently continued some hnes further on.1 For some clauses foUowing the various texts are sufficiently close to be accepted for present purposes, but at clause 17 a discrepancy of some note occurs. Queenborough and Tottel when describing the division of a gavelkinder's goods foUowing his decease read thus: qe le mart eit la une partye e les fiz mulieres lautre partye e la femme la terce partye. Lincoln's Inn defines the third part more closely with the words: la femme en vie le tierce parte and Canterbury and Lambarde modify stiU further by altering the second part to read: e les fiz e les files un partie. It may again be questioned whether this is more than a careful definition, but it could be taken that the form in Queenborough omits the daughters. If so, the variation is most significant, though it seems probable that in this case the wording in Queenborough is loose and needed the more careful limitation of Canterbury. The foUowing clause giving the widow a moiety for life in default of heirs is omitted by Lincoln's Inn, possibly in error since the life interest had been inserted in the former clause. A further group of clauses follow where variations are again shght and tend in the published texts towards closer definition, although there is an omission in the Lincoln's Inn version of clause 23 almost certainly a scribal error of the kind noted before. Clause 26 which describes escheat of a gavelkinder's property to a lord holding " by Hawberke or by Sergeantry " has the phrase " by death or by Gavelate as is hereafter saide " in Canterbury and Lambarde, another instance of variant texts adding useful but repetitive information. A somewhat simUar case occurs in the next clause. Canterbury and Lambarde read: " And it is to be made known that whereas the tenant so surrendering, retains no service to himself, he nevertheless serves to other lords the fees, services and rents with which the aforesaid tenements thus surrendered were before charged by those or by him who could charge them." AU the other three texts finish at " himself," so that the more careful definition of the clause is omitted in the earhest version under discussion. UntU the final clauses the texts again are reasonably simUar except 1 Robinson quotes Somner and gives the St. Augustine version which inserted an extra clause regarding felony at this point. Op. cit., p. 285. 153 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT for the omission in clause 35 in Lincoln's Inn of the words issi que iiij tenauns de gavelkinde elisent xij tenauns de gavelkinde jorors. This would appear to be a scribal error since aU the other texts retain this phrase which is of an explanatory character and which is based on the charter of 1232.1 At the end a curious and important discrepancy arises. AU but Canterbury have the clause: " And the charter of the King of this especialtie is in the custody of Sir John de Norwood the day of St. Alphege in Canterbury the year of King Edward the Sonne of King Henrie the xxi."2 Norwood was sheriff of Kent, 1291-2, though why he should have been custodian of this vital charter in AprU, 1293, must remain a mystery. The inclusion of this clause in Queenborough suggests its authenticity, and it emphasizes the year 1293 as a time of special significance. But why does Canterbury omit aU reference to this matter? The answer to this question seems to he in the final clause only recorded in Canterbury and Lambarde; this reads: " The above are the usages of GaveUdnd, which were before the Conquest, at the Conquest, and ever since, tUl now." As Robinson pointed out this clause " is repugnant to the last privUege which is claimed under the charter of Henry III."3 It is, however, not found in Queenborough, Tottel or Lincoln's Inn and is suggestive of a second tradition, to which matter we wUl return. There remain three items of moment in the three clauses which embody rhymed couplets in Middle Kentish. Each deserves close examination and comment. The first of these is the weU known and well attested couplet: The father to the bough The son to the plough. So frequently has this been quoted that to suggest any inaccuracy in the record is no hght task, yet it is necessary to submit that this is a misreading of the text. In the five sources examined Tottel and Lambarde record the couplet as above. Lincoln's Inn, on the other hand gives a version which in some respects seems more near to the original, it reads: Son the Fader to the Bonde, son the son to the Londe." One great difficulty here is the necessity for rhyme and it arises in the Lincoln's Inn text with the word " bond," " bough " being certainly more authentic. In Tottel and Lambarde the word " plough " which rhymes with bough presents a simUar difficulty for it does not occur in either of our early texts despite an inaccurate transcription in V.C.H.! Queenborough records the last word as " lough" and 1 Cal. Charter Rolls, 1226-67, p. 150. 2 Lambarde is foUowed here although he varies slightly from the others. 3 See Robinson^ p. 297, Cal. Charter Bolls, 1226-67, p. 150. 154 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT Canterbury as " loghe " and there is no trace of a " p . " This word is obscure and the need for rhyme may very easUy have been father to the thought.1 .Another possibility is that of scribal error: the word before " loghe " in each case is " the " spelt with the Saxon Thorn and a foUowing " e." For a careless scribe this could easUy deteriorate into a " p." BasicaUy, however, the question remains: what is the meaning of " lough " or " loghe "? That it is not an early variant of plough is made clear by the Oxford English Dictionary, but no such word as " loghe " appears in Wright's or HaUiweU's Dialect Dictionary. Fortunately a document exists which may give a clue to this problem. In 1446 a very detaUed survey was prepared for the manor of GUhngham. Known as the " Black Book of GiUingham " a later copy was used extensively* by H. L. Gray for his study English Field Systems in. 1915.2 An almost contemporary copy found subsequently at GiUingham was deposited in the Kent Archives Office in 1953.3 This refers to three kinds of holding within the manor : "jugum, ferthing and logus". The first two need no explanation in Kent, ferthing being merely a quarter of a jugum, but what is " logus " and can it be the same word as appears in Queenborough and Canterbury? There was an Anglo-Saxon word " loh " meaning a place or stead and this had a genitive form " loges." Is it not possible that " logus " is a Latinization of " loh " and that the same word appears again in the couplet under discussion? To translate " Logus' Cobbe " which appears on p. 38 of the survey as " Cobbe's homestead " seems reasonable enough and in the custumal the suggestion that on the execution of the father the son took over the famUy property, whUe implicit in the word " plough " is certainly much better expressed by a word meaning homestead or something hke that. Thus the use of " londe " in Lincoln's Inn is far nearer the original than the common form which has clearly been chosen for its rhyming quahties. The second couplet is stUl more fascinating and more difficult. There are essentiaUy two forms, so different as to appear incompatible. Once again, as so frequently recorded aheady, Canterbury and Lambarde are in agreement whUe Queenborough provides the basic form for the other two texts. The version given by Canterbury is much the easier of the two and reads: " Se the heswende, se heslende." This is translated in V.C.H.: " He that doth wend to her Let him lend to her." 1 The only early text having " plough " is Liber Horn in the City of London Archives, see below. 2 Published by Harvard U.P. 3 K.A.O. U398. 155 15 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT This reading presents no real dUficulty. The clause to which it is attached relates to the position of the widow and in particular to the unchaste widow. The couplet is acceptable on aU grounds. Queenborough and related texts, however, have a very different form, viz.: " Si J>at is wedewe, se is leudei," which is translated: " She that is a widow, she is a lady." At first sight this is totaUy out of keeping with the clause and provides no basis of comparison with the alternative. There is httle hope of any scribal error, the traditions seem to be whoUy distinct, everything hangs on the definition of a " lady " in early Kent. The simplest interpretation seems that a widow is a" person with rights in property, i.e. the Kentish widow received a moiety of her husband's lands untU she was proven unchaste or remarried—she was a lady in her own right. It is possible in view of the corrupt state of these couplets that some other word than " lady " was intended, but in view of the special place of the widow in Kentish gavelkind this seems the best reading. Its obscurity is bound up with the lack of definition of the word " lady " and the alternative couplet is much more readUy understood. As regards authenticity there is no reason to doubt either form, but while the latter is dependent upon a legal conception of rights in property the former is the sort of jingle which emphasizes a point in local tradition. Fortunately the third couplet need not detain us long. Queenborough reads: " Nengthe sithe yelde, nengthe sithe gUde and yif pund for ye were, yan is he heldere," and aU the other texts though varying in spelling foUow the same form. So corrupt indeed has this couplet become that its interpretation is a matter of doubt. It relates to a tenant who has lost his land through default claiming the property again from his lord. Robinson translates in curious jargon thus : " hathe he not since any thing given and hath he not since any thing paid, then let him pay five pounds for his were, or amercement, before he become tenant or holder again." Unfortunately some texts, but not one that the present author has seen and certainly not Canterbury use a form which has been translated: " Nine times let him give, nine times pay, And five pounds for the penalty, Ere he becomes holder."1 Why Dr. Slater chose to translate " Naye sith yelde, Naye sithe gelde " in this form is uncertain, but he seems to have taken this clause from MS. Colt and placed it in the centre of his translation of the Register B. MS.—a most curious practice. The generaUy corrupt wording of this couplet together with the fact that both Queenborough and Canterbury i V.C.H., p. 326. 156 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT are in agreement, plus the fact that a ninefold payment would be excessive and would not form an " agreement" with the lord, but rather a hard and vicious rule, makes one favour the form adopted by Lambarde and Robinson. (ifi) CONCLUSION What conclusion or theories can one sustain as a result of this very cursory examination? Is there a real association with 1293 or is the Custumal much older? Are the discrepancies such that its very nature is suspect? First, the existing texts are aU late, even Queenborough is a generation after 1293. There is therefore ample room for alteration and glossing, yet the close approximation of Queenborough, Tottel and Lincoln's Inn makes the authenticity of Queenborough the more certain. On the other hand there is a simUar approximation between Canterbury and Lambarde and whUe Canterbury is a century later than Queenborough it is almost certainly based on an earlier record. There is thus a case for suggesting two distinct though not irreconcUable traditions. Queenborough appears in a statute book along with copies of Magna Carta, the Provisions of Merton, De Donis and Quia Emptores. It is therefore a lawyer's work for use as part of the common law and statute law of the land. For that reason its validity depends to a degree upon its estabhshed position: hence the vague clause about the usages being those of pre-conquest days is omitted and emphasis is placed on 19th AprU, 1293. Just where and when the tradition of John de Berewicke comes in is unknown, for without the original " auncient and faire written RoU," Lambarde's. version must remain the most suspect of those examined, if only because it tends to accept material from both Queenborough and Canterbury sources. As a statute, however, association with 1293 is significant and important in proving the vahdity of the document and it is therefore suggested that Queenborough represents the common lawyers' tradition. Canterbury on the other hand is found in a Monastic Register and has httle relation to statute law or need to be associated with a body of legal evidence. The best test of validity here is antiquity and the ecclesiastical tradition omits aU reference to 1293 but does refer to the very ancient character of the customs. May not this therefore account in part for the many variant readings between Queenborough and Canterbury? Variation appears to arise from the foUowing factors: (a) scribal error, as where Canterbury omits several hnes of text; (6) the attempt to elucidate the point at issue, as in several examples cited; (c) additions made to fit the law, the clause dealing with escheators 157 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT is a good example and so also is the last clause regarding the number of jurors which was based on a charter 'of Henry III given on 11th February, 1232: (d) a distinct variation of tradition or dehberate alteration of the text to emphasize or prove a point, the use of the word " gavelkinders " or " Kenteys " in the freedom clause may be of this kind and so may the two forms of the couplet: " Se the heswende, se heslende " or " Si J»at is wedewe, se is leuedi." One's conclusion must be therefore that this custumal embodies local law far older than 1293, indeed that the Canterbury tradition regarding age is much sounder, but that the text has been amended to meet new circumstances and perhaps newly developed moral codes to say nothing of scribal error and gloss, so that in terms of authenticity the Queenborough text is probably the best as weU as the oldest, but should be read if possible in conjunction with the version in Register B at Canterbury. This article was prepared on discovery of the Queenborough text and comparison with that given by V.C.H. The result of this search coupled with the examination of Lambarde and the two variant forms given by Robinson have led to such interesting and important propositions that some further probing seems desirable. It is known that many texts exist though some of these are late in date. The Statutes of the Realm, 1810 edition which prints a version, used Harley MS. 667 as a basis, but also refers to Cotton Claudius D u and a copy in Liber Horn in the City of London Record Office. This incidentaUy is wrongly said to be in Latin, aU three in fact being in French as are Queenborough and Canterbury and also the original used by Lambarde. It seemed therefore that an examination of these three additional texts was desirable before presenting final conclusions. AU three are early. Liber Horn is placed at 1311, Claudius D n is very simUar in appearance to Queenborough and may weU be dated c. 1325, while Harley MS. 667 is also of the early fourteenth century.1 This is clearly significant for in place of one early text we now have four a complete refutal of the statement in V.C.H. that the version at Canterbury is the earhest. Can these three throw hght on obscure points or do they merely confuse the issue? Apart from minor verbal variations, Claudius D n and Liber Horn both foUow Queenborough whUe Harley 667 is almost identical with Canterbury and Lambarde. The theory of two traditions is thus maintained and carried back to the years immediately after 1293. Moreover Harley 667 holds the John de Berewyk tradition ignored by the other texts but the clause regarding the eyre instead of being 1 For information regarding Liber Horn I am indebted to Mr. M. J. Chandler, of the City of London Record Office, and regarding Claudius D ii and Harley 667 to Mr. P. D. A. Harvey, of the British Museum. 158 THE CUSTUMAL OF KENT placed at the start of the custumal as in Lambarde is linked with the last clause, a more reasonable place for it to appear. The same text also retains the clause regarding escheators which makes its accurate dating a point of significance and suggests that it cannot be earher than 1301. In other respects also Harley 667 foUows Canterbury referring to " Kenteys " and retaining the phrase: " Se J>at his wende se his lende." It would therefore be of some significance to know the provenance of both volumes from which these texts are taken. In this respect Claudius D U is the simpler to assess. It formed part of the " Liber Custumarum " of the City of London, which book was a coUection of laws, charters of hberties and statutes, prepared in the fourteenth century. It is therefore closely related to Liber Horn and its simUarity with Queenborough is also immediately obvious. Here again is the Common Lawyer at work. The Harley 667 text is more difficult. It again is found in a coUection of statutes, charters, etc., and its certain provenance is unknown, though since the Customs of Kent are immediately foUowed by the customs of Rochester Bridge a Kentish origin may be suggested. Again many items in the same part of the compUation, which now contains more than one original volume, are of ecclesiastical interest so that the proposition that this again may be of Monastic origin, possibly even the Rochester form of the customs, is not whoUy out of place. In any event it strengthens the general conclusion that there were at least two traditions, one civU and one ecclesiastical with distinct divergencies in some points. Thanks largely to the authority of Lambarde the strange situation arises that the version pubhshed as a statute of the realm and thus carrying a measure of authority was not the text so used in the fourteenth century but the form in favour with the Church of that day. 159