. I y , -1 7‘ ELK K/\.\z<‘~ “S *7‘ 3'4" L /’:<flC.H C/‘f‘7\l’( 3! 1 FMS" N93 ._._..._ /rnvr ' lrr/-/[.3 nva Bmuwxcnrs / I‘: 3 ufiarz ~ 0!! r-lfo ' -’ ° ’-‘v ,.-’ L ll"'1‘~_ H 5 a r 3“ \ » ,-' Osvrrlfi v \‘ °Sull0";'_‘.,' 47-Iladt \\ Brovnleg } \‘ ,.‘. \S4/rro/v‘:n7 //on/£‘ '7 ca ~ \ \ * ‘(‘k.‘ C: \. \ ‘ " ‘I I ' \e’m\\_,“\<" “"""h’fi Wm up 'u\\' '" '\/ \.,,,\. rum '“ ~ \. ‘. ‘. ») ‘Pd ‘:4 U: *4 __ V 3' ’7_l/GUSTIIVI: 1 A M‘ ( .,,L,,/‘ "\ (J Cdwrzptzlkr .. .' -. .- *'-5.’! """"»,,,. -.z'\ 0; ..__,' '/'._ 'In«'\.Im' av-‘N’ *nu‘nw um -rn;.\~Ir‘§' ' “' "mil M; M‘ L [ ‘, 3 ; 0 R 0 ’_.V> ,_ I ' ‘is. c 3,.,'dg,_- o Eastry \ = -\g— J 5‘. Ivfizy/I/l¢;rcl{m3y‘ mx “'Ill\»Il/AV /My-/fllI'Im\ A1-) ~_. :’ S - J (1,. O U S 7' I /V I \ \\ ,:‘-‘-/‘- «.4 /1 ) ("3 /.1‘ ’;, xx‘ I .\ 1 ,_ ‘I —\ #5 . '\’__"_‘J_/ ~-.‘ ’ "J ‘P .5’ c 9 H Y IA -’ / :3’ ‘ -‘ ’- :3‘ w! \. \-7 K—'“'/ \‘.>’' .' v'-’ -V °€7Lar? ‘ °5lauI,n ( . : . /'\,‘,_.. ' 37 ‘\/ .)-"" ‘\.,/2 .’ ‘ __._m _' , , _~ 7/76’ Seven Hundreds ’(-l 'y..»‘’ V l I 7"._{I I 0 F 05 V ‘\ 5hepwag ‘__‘ '\ ‘f)3II£Pw:r- ‘M/'~ \_ 1 ‘. \ " ~\/. / ‘ f \, 0 ‘W. <1’ \_ \ ‘.1: K 164 “ 'l‘HE'VALLEY or HOLMESDALE.” question. The fact that the place-name is found in the northern rather than the southern extremity of each of such areas would support the contention that, as regards ‘Vest Kent itself, its civilization and development moved from the north in a southerly direction. As regards “spiritual” subdivision, it shoul(l be borne in mind that the Cathedrals of Canterbury and Rochester both lie to the eastern rather than the western end of our county, while the original Rural Deanery covering the bulk of the Kentish Hohnesdale derives its name from Shoreham at its northern extremity. It may well be that the “conversion” and subsequent ecclesiastical control of both the Hohnesdale and the western portion of the Wealrl of Kent emanated and continued to be directed from Shoreham. To return to our plan of tracing development by the place—names, the subdivision of the bailiwicl: was the hun- dred, just as the subdivision of the hundred was the tithing or borough. In spite of variations and changes iii the tithings recorded from time to time, and to a lesser extent in the hundreds found in our county, we may with confidence look upon the successive divisions of tithing or borough, hundred and lathe, as an actual survival to the present day of a system which was in existence at the landing of St. Augustine, a11d was still better establislied o11 the arrival of King VVilliam. If this suggestioll be riglit, we have in our tithings or boroughs units of local government or control older than the parochial system subdivided out of bishopric, arch- deaconry, and rural deanery older than the advent of Chris- tianity itself, and which perhaps represent the nearest approach we can make to the foundation of society as we see it among us to-day. These Kentish boroughs must not be confounded with the better known municipal borough, indicating something in the nature of a large provincial town. The Kentish borough may well have been but a hamlet 01' a cluster of farm buildings grouped together for the purposes of com- /-1 C _:-if . 5,‘ MN —-.r 7;: ‘l".1‘I‘IE VALLEY or HOLMESDALE.” I65 munal responsibility and represented by a head man, tithing man or decener at the hundred court. ’ It is stated above that, speaking generally, the bailiwick is not subdivided. Two exceptions should be mentioned. First as to the bailiwick of Stouting. The place-name of this bailiwick is on the extreme western boundary, and near to the place—name of the lathe of Shipway, of which it forms part. But the easternmost hundred, called Buesborough, figures in the adjoining lathe of St. Augustine, and not in the lathe of Shipway as do the four other hundreds belonging to this bailiwick. Buesborough hundred is intersected by the Roman road leading from Dover to Canterbury, and the inhabitants could reach Easti" or St. Augustine’s at Can- terbury, the successive place-iiames and presumably the points of assembly of the bailiwick and lathe to which their hundred appears to have been transferred, with much greater ease than they could have reached Shipway. Similarly as regards the bailiwick of Twyford, iii the lathe of Aylesford, the hundred of Marden in its south- eastern corner figures‘ as part of the adjoining lathe of Scray. The reason may be somewhat the opposite of our previous instance. Marden was always an appendage of far distant Milton, itself a place-name of a Domesday lathe afterwards made a. bailiwick of Scray. Here it would be a convenience for the men. of Marden to meet at a bailiwick muster in T\vyford rather than Milton, though, as soon as the seve11 hundreds and Milton were all included in the lathe of Scray, Marden might well be similarly embraced. As regards hundreds which figure in more than one baili- wick, Kilburn mentions two only. The one is Kinghamford, one parish of which, namely Wootton, is included in the bailiwick of Eastry rather than the hailiwick of Bridge. The advantage is less zLppa1'c11t here. The second instance lies in VV4,-st Kent. Here the four Cray parishes with Bcxley, all of which lie in the hundred of ltuxley, itself a part of the bailiwick of Sutti>n-lfl1'o1nley, appear in the l>aili~- wick of Sutton-I)artfor:1m~