half her husband’s estate as dower, in Wales she had no such provision.
A parallel in custom may be found by comparing the law of Kent with the Jutish law of King Valdemar II. in the thirteenth century, both of which contain the provision that the son, in reference to the property of the deceased father, shall be considered of age in his fifteenth year. This usage, though on the one side in accordance with Danish laws, and on the other valid among the socmen in other parts of England, is probably not derived from the Saxons, but is rather to be referred to the immigration of the Jutes.[1] Such a comparison also assists the evidence, which tends to show that the numerous socmen were of Scandinavian rather than of Saxon origin. Among other early privileges of Kent was the custom of freedom from ordinary distress. There was a Kentish process of ‘cessavit,’ under which, if a tenant withheld from his lord his due rents and services, the custom of the country gave the lord a special process for the recovery of what was due to him.[2] A somewhat similar custom of freedom from ordinary distress prevailed in London in very early time, and in a few other parts of the country. Where rents could not be recovered by the ordinary process of distress they were called ‘dry rents.’ The value of the comparison of these customs becomes clear when it is remembered that the ancient Visigoth law prohibited distress,[3] and these Visigoth settlers in Western Europe probably brought it from their Northern home. As it was common alike to the Visigoths, the people of Kent, and those of London, it supports the evidence that the Jutes were mainly Goths, and that people of this race settled in sufficient numbers in Kent and in and around London to insure the continuance of one of their customary privileges.
