the　social　standing　of　intermediate　groups。　The　free　socmen　of　Swaffham　Prior；　in　Cambridgeshire；（65*）　complain　that　they　are　made　to　bind　sheaves　while　they　did　not　do　it　before；　they　used　to　pay　thirty…two　pence　for　licence　to　marry　a　daughter；　and　to　give　a　twofold　rent　on　entering　an　inheritance；　and　now　the　lord　fines　them　at　will。　One　of　the　tenants　of　the　Bishop　of　Lincoln　（66*）　declares　to　the　Hundred　Roll　Commissioners　that　his　ancestors　were　free　socmen　and　did　service　to　the　king　for　forty　days　at　their　own　cost；　whereas　now　the　Bishop　has　appropriated　the　royal　rights。　The　same　grievances　come　from　ancient　demesne　people。　In　Weston；　Bedfordshire；（67*）　the　tenantry　complain　of　new　exactions　on　the　part　of　the　lord；　in　King's　Ripton；（68*）　Hunts；　merchet　is　introduced　which　was　never　paid　before；　in　Collecot；　Berks；（69*）　the　lord　has　simply　dispossessed　the　socmen。　In　some　instances　the　claims　of　the　peasantry　may　have　been　exaggerated；　but　I　think　that　in　all　probability　the　chances　were　rather　against　the　subjected　people　than　for　them；　and　their　grievances　are　represented　in　our　documents　rather　less　than　fairly。（70*）　　　　　In　speaking　of　those　classes　of　peasants　who　were　by　no　means　treated　as　serfs　to　be　exploited　at　will；　I　must　not　omit　to　mention　one　group　which　appears；　not　as　a　horizontal　layer　spread　over　England；　but　in　the　vertical　cut；　as　it　were。　I　mean　the　Kentish　gavelkind　tenantry。　The　Domesday　Survey　speaks　of　the　population　of　this　county　quite　in　the　same　way　as　of　the　people　of　neighbouring　shires；　villains　form　the　great　bulk　of　it；　socmen　are　not　even　mentioned；　and　to　judge　by　such　indications；　we　have　here　plain　serfdom　occupying　the　whole　territory　of　the　county。　On　the　other　hand　the　law　of　the　thirteenth　century　puts　the　social　standing　of　Kentish　men　in　the　most　decided　opposition　to　that　of　the　surrounding　people。　The　'Consuetudines　Kanciae；'　the　well…known　list　of　special　Kentish　customs；（71*）　is　reported　to　have　been　drawn　up　during　an　eyre　of　John　of　Berwick　in　the　twenty…first　year　of　Edward　I。　Be　its　origin　what　it　may；　we　come　across　several　of　its　rules　at　much　earlier　times；（72*）　and　they　are　always　considered　of　immemorial　custom。　The　basis　of　Kentish　social　law　is　the　assumption　that　every　man　born　in　the　county　is　entitled　to　be　considered　as　personally　free；　and　the　Common　Law　Courts　recognised　the　notion　to　the　extent　of　admitting　the　assertion　that　a　person　was　born　in　Kent　as　a　reply　against　the　'exceptio　villenagii。'　The　contrast　with　other　counties　did　not　stop　there。　The　law　of　tenure　was　as　different　as　the　law　of　status。　It　would　be　needless　to　enumerate　all　the　points　set　forth　as　Kentish　custom。　They　show　conclusively　that　the　lord　was　anything　but　omnipotent　in　this　county。　Interference　with　the　proprietary　right　of　the　peasantry　is　not　even　thought　of　the　tenants　may　even　alienate　their　plots　freely；　the　lord　can　only　claim　the　accustomed　rents　and　services；　if　the　tenants　are　negligent　in　performing　work　or　making　payments；　distress　and　forfeiture　are　awarded　by　the　manorial　court　according　to　carefully　graduated　forms；　wardship　in　case　of　minority　goes　to　the　kin　and　not　to　the　lord；　and　heiresses　cannot　be　forced　to　marry　against　their　wish。　As　a　case　of　independence　the　Kentish　custom　is　quite　complete；　and　manorial　documents　show　on　every　page　that　it　was　anything　but　a　dead　letter。　The　Rochester　Custumal；　the　Black　Book　of　St。　Augustine；　the　customs　of　the　Kentish　possessions　of　Battle　Abbey；　the　registers　of　Christ　Church；　Canterbury；　all　agree　in　showing　the　Kentish　tenantry　as　a　privileged　one；　both　as　to　the　quantity　and　as　to　the　quality　of　their　services。（73*）　And　so　the　great　bulk　of　the　Kentish　peasantry　actually　appears　in　the　same　general　position　as　the　free　socmen　of　other　counties；　and　sometimes　they　are　even　called　by　this　name。（74*）　　　　　What　is　more；　the　law　of　Kent　thus　favourable　to　the　peasantry　connects　itself　distinctly　with　the　ancient　customs　of　Saxon　ceorls：　the　quaint　old　English　proverbs　enrolled　in　it　look　like　sayings　which　have　kept　it　in　the　memory　of　generations　before　it　was　transmitted　to　writing。　The　peculiarities　in　the　treatment　of　wardship；　of　dower；　of　inheritance；　appear　not　only　in　opposition　to　the　feudal　treatment　of　all　these　subjects；　but　in　close　connexion　with　old　Saxon　usage。　It　would　be　very　wrong；　however；　to　consider　the　whole　population　of　Kent　as　living　under　one　law。　As　in　the　case　of　ancient　demesne；　there　were　different　classes　on　Kentish　soil：　tenants　by　knight…service　and　sergeanty　on　one　side；　villains　on　the　other。（75*）　The　custom　of　Kent　holds　good　only　for　the　tenantry　which　would　have　been　called　gavelmen　in　other　places。　It　is　a　custom　of　gavelkind；　of　the　rent…paying　peasantry；　the　peasantry　which　pays　gafol；　and　as　such　stands　in　opposition　to　the　usages　of　those　who　hold　their　land　by　fork　and　flail。（76*）　The　important　point　is　that　we　may　lay　down　as　certain　in　this　case　what　was　only　put　forward　hypothetically　in　the　case　of　molmen　and　gavelmen　in　the　rest　of　England：　the　freehold　quality　of　rent…paying　land　is　not　due　to　commutation　and　innovation　alone　　it　proceeds　from　a　pre…feudal　classification　of　holdings　which　started　from　the　contrast　between　rent　and　labour；　and　not　from　that　between　certain　and　uncertain　tenure。　Again；　the　law　of　gavelkind；　although　not　extending　over　the　whole　of　Kent；　belongs　to　so　important　and　numerous　a　portion　of　the　population；　that；　as　in　the　case　of　ancient　demesne；　it　comes　to　be　considered　as　the　typical　custom　of　the　county；　and　attracts　all　other　variations　of　local　usage　into　its　sphere　of　influence。　The　Custumal　published　among　the　Statutes　speaks　of　the　personal　freedom　of　all　Kentish…men；　although　it　has　to　concern　itself　specially　with　the　gavelkind　tenantry。　The　notion　of　villainage　gets　gradually　eliminated　from　the　soil　of　the　province；　although　it　was　by　no　means　absent　from　it　in　the　beginning。　　　　　Thirteenth…century　law　evidently　makes　the　contrast　between　Kent　and　adjoining　shires　more　sharp　than　it　ought　to　have　been；　if　all　the　varieties　within　the　county　were　taken　into　account。　But；　if　it　was　possible　from　the　legal　standpoint　to　draw　a　hard　and　fast　line　between　Kent　on　one　side；　Sussex　or　Essex　on　the　other；　it　is　quite　impossible；　from　the　historian's　point　of　view；　to　grant　that　social　condition　has　developed　in　adjoining　places　out　of　entirely　different　elements；　without　gradations　and　intermediate　shades。　Is　there　the　slightest　doubt　that　the　generalising　jurisprudence　of　the　thirteenth　century　went　much　too　far　in　one　direction；　the　generalising　scribes　of　the　eleventh　century　having　gone　too　far　in　the　other？　Domesday　does　not　recognise　any　substantial　difference　between　the　state　of　Kent　and　that　of　Sussex；　the　courts　of　the　thirteenth　century　admitted　a　complete　diversity　of　custom；　and　neither　one　nor　the　other　extreme　can　be　taken　as　a　true　description　of　reality。　The　importance　of　the　custom　of　Kent　can　hardly　be　overrated：　it　shows　conclusively　what　a　mistake　it　would　be　to　accept　without　criticism　the　usual　generalising　statement　as　to　the　different　currents　of　social　life　in　mediaeval　England。　It　will　hardly　be　doubted　moreover；　that　the　Kentish　case　proves　that　elements　of　freedom　bequeathed　by　history　but　ignored　by　the　Domesday　Survey　come　to　the　fore　in　consequence　of　certain　facts　which　remain　more　or　less　hidden　from　view　and　get　recognised　and　protected　in　spite　of　feudalism。　If　so；　can　the　silence　of　Domesday　or　the　absence　of　legal　protection　in　the　thirteenth　century　stand　as　sufficient　proof　against　the　admission　of　freedom　as　an　important　constitutive　element　in　the　historical　process　leading　to　feudalism？　Is　it　not　more　natural　to　infer　that　outside　Kent　there　were　kindred　elements　of　freedom；　kindred　remnants　of　a　free　social　order　which　never　got　adequate　recognition　in　the　Domesday　terminology　or　left　definite　traces　in　the　practice　of　the　Royal　courts？　　　　　One　more　subject　remains　to　be　touched　upon；　and　it　may　be　approached　safely　now　that　we　have　reviewed　the　several　social　groups　on　the　border　between　freeholders　and　villains。　It　is　this　　to　what　extent　can　the　existence　of　a　class　of　freeholders　among　the　peasantry　of　feudal　England　be　maintained？　It　has　been　made　a　test　question　in　the　controversy　between　the　supporters　of　the　free　and　those　of　the　servile　community；　and　it　would　seem；　at　first　sight；　on　good　ground。　Stress　has　been　laid　on　the　fact；　that　such　communities　as　are　mentioned　in　Domesday　and　described　in　later　documents　are　（if　we　set　aside　the　Danish　counties）　almost　entirely　peopled　by　villains；　that　free　tenants　increase　in　number　through　the　agency　of　commutation　and　grants　of　demesne　land；　whereas　they　are　extremely　few　immediately　after　Domesday；　and　that　in　this　way　there　can　be　no　talk　of　free　village　communities　this　side　of　the　Conquest。（77*）　This　view　of　the　case　may　be　considered　as　holding　the　field　at　the　present　moment：　its　chief　argument　has　been　briefly　summarised　by　the　sentence…the　villains　of　Domesday　are　not　the　predecessors　in　title　of　later　freeholders。（78*）　I　cannot　help　thinking　that　a　good　deal　has　to　be　modified　in　this　estimate　of　the　evidence。　Without　touching　the　subject