Page:Surrey Archaeological Collections Volume 1.djvu/254

 dated the 13th February, 4 and 5 Philip and Mary [1558], for 41 years.

Out of this transaction arose a question on account of Edwardes being supposed to hold this manor of the Crown in capite, in which case a royal license of alienation would have been necessary, and in the eighth year of this reign this question was accordingly tried before the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, when judgment was given in Edwardes' s favour.

By an indenture dated the 20th June, 10 Eliz. [1568], Edwardes mortgaged this manor for £300 to Nicholas Toke, by whom it was afterwards granted to Walter Mayne; he on the 1st April, 1577, conveyed it to Thomas Westwraye, who in 44 Eliz. granted it to John Edwardes, William Edwardes's heir.

The next owner was Randolph Crew, a merchant of London; and it was during the time which he held it that the disputed question as to whether Hatcham lay in Surrey or Kent was finally settled. This decision arose out of the levy of ship-money by Charles I. In the course of this taxation Mr. Crew was rated in both counties for the manor of Little Hatcham, whereupon he petitioned the Lords of the Council for redress, and they sent the following letter to the judges of assize for Kent and Surrey:—

"A Letter to the Judges of Assize for the County of Kent and Surrey.

"Wee send you heere eneloased a peticon presented by Randolph Crew, of London, mercht., who being seized of the manner of Hatcham bordering upon the county of Kent, but dubtfull whether the said manner properly lyeth within the county of Kent or the county of Surry, wherby the two sheriffs of the said counties have charged the