THE WEALD OF KENT.°
MR. FIMILEY'S pleasant first volume on the Weald of Kent seems to mark a change that is likely before long to transform the character of our county histories. The old type of these, of which Dugdale's Warwickshire is perhaps the most amusing, and Mr. Eyton's Shropshire the most learned example, dealt almost exclusively with the history of parishes and families. The county in every instance was the writer's little world, beyond which he scarcely cared to travel, and he kindled with a local veneration for the worthies of every district. The predilection for books of this class is so far from having died out, that we have heard of two counties in which large sums await the fortunate archeologist who will devote himself to emulating the labours of Halsted or Whitaker. But the world at large has acquired wider interests. We are learning more and more how to interpret the evidence of natural objects and local name; caring more to reconstruct a picture of the past in which hill, and forest, and stream shall appear as they were when the first inhabitants of this island be- held them. And in proportion as we know this does our insight into the character of early institutions become clear and thorough. Given the physical conditions of life, we can tell better at least than before how our ancestors of the fifth and ninth centuries ordered the government of their little primitive communities.
A glance at the very interesting maps which illustrate Mr. Farley's book will show the method he has pursued. His first gives Kent as we know it in Roman times, the Weald covering half the county, a broad estuary stretching inland to Newenden, and a few names marking the stations on the Roman roads. Except that the river name Sturius—we suspect a Saxon anachron- ism—has been inserted from Richard of Cirencester's forgery, and that Vagniacas and Durolenum are omitted because their old sites cannot be positively identified, this map leaves nothing to desire. The second map takes us to the time of the Domesday Survey,
• History of the Weald of Kent, tads the Outline of the Harty History of Os cower. By Robert Fttrley, F.B.A. Vol. L Aalgord: H. Iggleeden. • London: John Russell Smith. and exhibits the different manors that were situate wholly or partly in the Weald of Kent in 1085. The result is curious. Seven properties lay altogether within the Forest, but as many as thirty-five were only partially included in its limits. The expla- nstion of this difference is simple and curious. The manors partially included were such as had denes or wooded valleys assigned them as commonage, and as centuries elapsed before the Weald was in any great degree broken up for regular settlement, large portions of it were annexed in this way to estates or town- ships in the open country. In other words, the Weald was not a peculiar district under a separate social system, but an ap- pendage to the peopled parts of the county, and administered for general purposes by the early Kings of Kent. "What, then," it may be asked, "becomes of Mr. Kemble's theory of a Teutonic march with its Mark Court and possible mar- graviate ?" Mr. Farley replies that the whole is "an in- genious speculation." "Praetorian here, Prastorian there. 1 mind the biggin of it." Throughout the earliest times in which we have any real history of the Weald,—and we know more of Kent than perhaps of any county,—we find pretty much the same broad features,—great proprietors having seignorial rights over large estates. In Kent, where Christianity was first firmly planted, the Church naturally acquired property at a comparatively early period. In a third map Ur. Farley shows us exactly what the Church manors were at the time of Domesday. It is reasonable to suppose that when these were first granted, they were trans- ferred with pretty much the same boundaries, rights, and obliga- tions by which their first owners had held them. Now the evidence of these charters is precise. The Weald is constantly referred to in them, not as a peopled district, but as a waste in which swine may be pastured. Its denes are not the property of its inhabitants, but of wealthy landowners, generally Churchmen, settled perhaps in Canterbury or Rochester.
In determining the old limits of the Weald, a general historian would be guided mainly by the evidence of local names, of old charters, and of stray passages in chronicles. The local historian treads upon firmer ground, for in the border parishes the lands which do not pay tithes, as having anciently been in the Weald, can still be distinguished from those that were outside it and pay. Instances of our marvellous English conservatism, the result partly, no doubt, of immunity from foreign conquests and from revolu- tion, meet us, in fact, constantly in Mr. Parley's pages. It is possible to identify many of the old landmarks in Saxon charters by their original names which are still in use. Tannera Hole sur- vives as Tapner's Hole, and the site of a mill transferred in 762 is still distinguishable. The sheriffs of the twelfth century kept the royal accounts in a roll, "called the Great Roll of the Pipe, from the shape which it took from its large size." The Clerk of the Pipe saw this answered. "This annual account is continued, and the sheriff still takes his 'quietus' yearly." This perpetuity of rights and customs gives, of course, great value to the labours of a sensible and conscientious county historian. The whole spirit of institutions may be changed, but he can generally assume that their framework is of high antiquity. Yet it not unfrequently happens that the peculiar boast of a county is precisely what there is least warrant to support. The time-honoured tradition that Kent made terms with the Conqueror is probably, as Mr. Furley thinks, warranted, though it does not perhaps follow that it was exceptionally favoured, as we believe William's general policy was to preserve the customary law of the shires. But the other and even more famous boast of local patriotism, that slavery has never been known in Kent, Ur. Farley, in common, we believe, with almost all good archaeologists, rejects. He refers the origin of the tradition to "the free tenure of the land in Kent," and states, "I do not believe that we have left in the county one entire copyhold manor, where land is held at the will of the lord by copy of court roll and subject to an arbitrary fine on death or alienation."
Want of space compels us to leave unnoticed much that enters • within the scope of Mr. Parley's book. He has something of the discursiveness of the antiquarian, and his work is perhaps not the less interesting on that account. But it is fair to add that he rises very far above mere antiquarianism in breadth of view and sober common-sense. His chapters show traces of uneven work- manship, and in the early and narrative parts he often leans un- duly on obsolete or second-rate authorities. But it is a good sign that he works more and more clear of doubtful illustrations as he advances. The book already has value and interest for more than a local public. When completed it ought to form a solid and interesting contribution to our knowledge of English history in early times. •
Previous page
