Inspeakingofthoseclassesofpeasantswhowerebynomeanstreatedasserfstobeexploitedatwill，Imustnotomittomentiononegroupwhichappears，notasahorizontallayerspreadoverEngland，butintheverticalcut，asitwere。ImeantheKentishgavelkindtenantry。TheDomesdaySurveyspeaksofthepopulationofthiscountyquiteinthesamewayasofthepeopleofneighbouringshires；villainsformthegreatbulkofit，socmenarenotevenmentioned，andtojudgebysuchindications，wehavehereplainserfdomoccupyingthewholeterritoryofthecounty。OntheotherhandthelawofthethirteenthcenturyputsthesocialstandingofKentishmeninthemostdecidedoppositiontothatofthesurroundingpeople。The’ConsuetudinesKanciae，’
thewell-knownlistofspecialKentishcustoms，71*isreportedtohavebeendrawnupduringaneyreofJohnofBerwickinthetwenty-firstyearofEdwardI。Beitsoriginwhatitmay，wecomeacrossseveralofitsrulesatmuchearliertimes，72*andtheyarealwaysconsideredofimmemorialcustom。ThebasisofKentishsociallawistheassumptionthateverymanborninthecountyisentitledtobeconsideredaspersonallyfree，andtheCommonLawCourtsrecognisedthenotiontotheextentofadmittingtheassertionthatapersonwasborninKentasareplyagainstthe’exceptiovillenagii。’Thecontrastwithothercountiesdidnotstopthere。Thelawoftenurewasasdifferentasthelawofstatus。ItwouldbeneedlesstoenumerateallthepointssetforthasKentishcustom。Theyshowconclusivelythatthelordwasanythingbutomnipotentinthiscounty。Interferencewiththeproprietaryrightofthepeasantryisnoteventhoughtofthetenantsmayevenalienatetheirplotsfreely；thelordcanonlyclaimtheaccustomedrentsandservices；ifthetenantsarenegligentinperformingworkormakingpayments，distressandforfeitureareawardedbythemanorialcourtaccordingtocarefullygraduatedforms；wardshipincaseofminoritygoestothekinandnottothelord，andheiressescannotbeforcedtomarryagainsttheirwish。AsacaseofindependencetheKentishcustomisquitecomplete，andmanorialdocumentsshowoneverythatitwasanythingbutadeadletter。TheRochesterCustumal，theBlackBookofSt。Augustine，thecustomsoftheKentishpossessionsofBattleAbbey，theregistersofChristChurch，Canterbury，allagreeinshowingtheKentishtenantryasaprivilegedone，bothastothequantityandastothequalityoftheirservices。73*AndsothegreatbulkoftheKentishpeasantryactuallyappearsinthesamegeneralpositionasthefreesocmenofothercounties，andsometimestheyareevencalledbythisname。74*
Whatismore，thelawofKentthusfavourabletothepeasantryconnectsitselfdistinctlywiththeancientcustomsofSaxonceorls：thequaintoldEnglishproverbsenrolledinitlooklikesayingswhichhavekeptitinthememoryofgenerationsbeforeitwastransmittedtowriting。Thepeculiaritiesinthetreatmentofwardship，ofdower，ofinheritance，appearnotonlyinoppositiontothefeudaltreatmentofallthesesubjects，butincloseconnexionwitholdSaxonusage。Itwouldbeverywrong，however，toconsiderthewholepopulationofKentaslivingunderonelaw。Asinthecaseofancientdemesne，thereweredifferentclassesonKentishsoil：tenantsbyknight-serviceandsergeantyononeside，villainsontheother。75*ThecustomofKentholdsgoodonlyforthetenantrywhichwouldhavebeencalledgavelmeninotherplaces。Itisacustomofgavelkind，oftherent-payingpeasantry，thepeasantrywhichpaysgafol，andassuchstandsinoppositiontotheusagesofthosewhoholdtheirlandbyforkandflail。76*TheimportantpointisthatwemaylaydownascertaininthiscasewhatwasonlyputforwardhypotheticallyinthecaseofmolmenandgavelmenintherestofEngland：thefreeholdqualityofrent-payinglandisnotduetocommutationandinnovationalone——itproceedsfromapre-feudalclassificationofholdingswhichstartedfromthecontrastbetweenrentandlabour，andnotfromthatbetweencertainanduncertaintenure。Again，thelawofgavelkind，althoughnotextendingoverthewholeofKent，belongstosoimportantandnumerousaportionofthepopulation，that，asinthecaseofancientdemesne，itcomestobeconsideredasthetypicalcustomofthecounty，andattractsallothervariationsoflocalusageintoitssphereofinfluence。TheCustumalpublishedamongtheStatutesspeaksofthepersonalfreedomofallKentish-men，althoughithastoconcernitselfspeciallywiththegavelkindtenantry。Thenotionofvillainagegetsgraduallyeliminatedfromthesoiloftheprovince，althoughitwasbynomeansabsentfromitinthebeginning。
Thirteenth-centurylawevidentlymakesthecontrastbetweenKentandadjoiningshiresmoresharpthanitoughttohavebeen，ifallthevarietieswithinthecountyweretakenintoaccount。
But，ifitwaspossiblefromthelegalstandpointtodrawahardandfastlinebetweenKentononeside，SussexorEssexontheother，itisquiteimpossible，fromthehistorian’spointofview，tograntthatsocialconditionhasdevelopedinadjoiningplacesoutofentirelydifferentelements，withoutgradationsandintermediateshades。Istheretheslightestdoubtthatthegeneralisingjurisprudenceofthethirteenthcenturywentmuchtoofarinonedirection，thegeneralisingscribesoftheeleventhcenturyhavinggonetoofarintheother？DomesdaydoesnotrecogniseanysubstantialdifferencebetweenthestateofKentandthatofSussex；thecourtsofthethirteenthcenturyadmittedacompletediversityofcustom，andneitheronenortheotherextremecanbetakenasatruedescriptionofreality。TheimportanceofthecustomofKentcanhardlybeoverrated：itshowsconclusivelywhatamistakeitwouldbetoacceptwithoutcriticismtheusualgeneralisingstatementastothedifferentcurrentsofsociallifeinmediaevalEngland。Itwillhardlybedoubtedmoreover，thattheKentishcaseprovesthatelementsoffreedombequeathedbyhistorybutignoredbytheDomesdaySurveycometotheforeinconsequenceofcertainfactswhichremainmoreorlesshiddenfromviewandgetrecognisedandprotectedinspiteoffeudalism。Ifso，canthesilenceofDomesdayortheabsenceoflegalprotectioninthethirteenthcenturystandassufficientproofagainsttheadmissionoffreedomasanimportantconstitutiveelementinthehistoricalprocessleadingtofeudalism？IsitnotmorenaturaltoinferthatoutsideKenttherewerekindredelementsoffreedom，kindredremnantsofafreesocialorderwhichnevergotadequaterecognitionintheDomesdayterminologyorleftdefinitetracesinthepracticeoftheRoyalcourts？