Page:Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey.djvu/288

232 called being the first which is described, although the churh is not mentioned till afterwards, as above.—The church contains two sedilia under pointed arches. (Horsfield’s Suss. I, 468,) 109. .—In (Val. Eccl.) this parish is said to be in Kent, though certainly in Sussex. It is styled "East" Guildford in reference to Guildford in Surrey; as South Malling in this county is so distinguished from the Mallings in Kent. 110. .—A church of chancel, nave, north and south aisles with chancels not even with the central, south porch (of which the entrance arch has been rendered "classical") and square west tower. In the high chancel is a mutilated trcfoil—headed piscina, and adjoining is an arch sufficiently wide for a double sedile, but at present there is no gradation of seats, the arch more resembling one for a tomb. In the northern chancel, which is now separated from the church, and with a late addition eastward forms a spacious vestry, is another trefoil-headed piscina. There seems to be a third piscina in the south chancel, but concealed by the pew lining. A small fragment of coloured glass remains in the east window. The building is generally Dec. and Perp., but has been much patched, some modern repairs having been executed in brick. Some rubble masonry is visible.—A farm in this parish called Otham disputes with the parish of Otham in Kent the credit of having been the site of a monastery, which was afterwards removed to Bayham in Lamberhurst. One statement is, that a monastery was founded at Otham in Sussex by Ralph de Dene; it was removed from thence into the parish of Lamberhurst, Brackley in Deptford being the site first selected; but it was eventually settled at Beaulieu in Bayham. (Monast. VI, 910.) The charters printed in the Monasticon do not distinctly state that the Otham in question was in Sussex, but the fact may be inferred from their contents. At Otham farm are the remains of at chapel, now used as a stable.—This chapel was probably the church of St. Lawrence of Otham, mentioned in a deed of Ranuph of Iclesham, the founder, "qui fundavit." (Weever’s Fun. Monum. 318, quoted in Horsfield’s Suss. l, 317.) The date of the deed is not given.—Formerly a cross, resembling that at Alfriston, stood at the junction of the three streets of this town, (Horsfield, ut sup.) Although, in concurrence with others, I have assigned the Domesday name Hamelesham to Hailsham, I greatly doubt the correctness of so doing. Judging from the hundreds, in which they are