Aspects of Kentish Local History

demesne, and certain customary courts. The proceedings in the Faversham Court of Portmote (except for the process to compel the appearance of the tenant to the praecipe) follow fairly closely the corresponding proceedings at Common Law. Jacob's History of Faversham (1774) says that the Mayor "holds a court of portmote upon every Tuesday fortnight .......... in it fines and recoveries have always been acknowledged."¹ In many cases the origin of the right to hold a court in which a Common Recovery could be suffered had been forgotten by the eighteenth century. Apart from any claim that might be based upon royal grant, Faversham could probably legitimately regard its Court of Portmote as the successor to the court of ancient demesne which the Abbey of Faversham, lords of the manor until the dissolution of the monasteries, had at a former period been legally obliged to hold for their tenants. Right up to the year 1833, when Common Recoveries were abolished by statute, it remained the law that a completely effective Recovery of land of the tenure of ancient demesne could be suffered only in the court of the manor of which the land was held. A Common Recovery of land of this tenure suffered in the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster was voidable at any distance of time by the lord of the manor. This defect in the title could not be cured by a subsequent Recovery in the court of the manor. In fact there was no way of

removing the defect, and land with such a title became practically unmarketable. The Real Property Commissioners in 1829 described the law on the subject as "harsh and inconvenient", especially as by then it had often become difficult to discover with any certainty whether a particular parcel of land was or was not of the tenure of ancient demesne. Perhaps this difficulty partly accounts for the state of affairs that Jacob reported in 1774: "Of late years, it (sc. the court of portmote) hath not been so much attended to, although it seems to be a very useful and convenient one to this town in general."

    The foregoing Letters Patent and Common Recovery are merely two examples of the many documents of historical, topographical, genealogical, and legal interest that the Records Branch have been able to help save from destruction. No doubt there are many other documents of at least equal interest lying in Solicitors' offices in the county, awaiting an uncertain end. It is hoped that this thought may prompt others who have old documents in their possession to go through them to ensure that those of value are preserved. In any case of doubt as to what is worth preservation, the Records Branch will be glad to offer advice, if desired.
   ¹  For an account of the proceedings for raising a fine (another fictitious legal action for barring an entail), see "The Common-Place Book of Faversham," Arch. Cant., XLVIII, p. 100.