Page:The Victoria History of the County of Surrey Volume 3.djvu/291

 REIGATE HUNDRED

��MERSTHAM

��Passelew, whose wife Christiana or Custance held it in dower after his death, and at the beginning of the following century their son Sir Edmund granted the reversion to Robert, his son by his second wife. 68 In 1335 this Robert complained that his step-brother John, then lord of Albury, had broken his close, mowed his grass and carried it away with other of his goods. 67 Nothing further is known about this estate until the 1 5th century, when according to Manning and Bray, who quote Court Rolls of Merstham, William Best died seised of it in 1487. Richard Best was holding in I522, 68 and in 1572 and 1587 it appears as the property of Nicholas Best. Another Nicholas Best died and was succeeded in 1670 by his son Nicholas. In 1678 it was sold to Joseph Reeve, who bequeathed all his estates to his only son John, making provision for his daughter Sarah, 69 who eventually succeeded her brother. She married secondly George Ballard, and in 1749 her ldest son by him sold the estate to Samuel Nicholson. By 1773 it was in the possession of Sir James Col- broke, who died in 1761. His brother Sir George conveyed it to Lord Newhaven. The manor then became the property of John Lefevre, who bequeathed it to his son-in-law Shaw, who took the name of Lefevre and was holding the estate in 1808.' The Rev. W. J. Jolliffe, second son of Mr. JollifFe who bought Merstham, bought Alderstead between 1820 and 1830. He died in 1835. His son was the first Lord Hylton, and Alderstead, which was always held of Merstham Manor, was united to it by him in 1843."

In 1522 Sir John Leigh held CHILBERTON (Chylbertons) as a manor of the Prior of Christ- church." According to Manning and Bray, Henry Drake conveyed it to William Franke in 1625. In 1658 he by will devised it to his youngest son Wil- liam. In 1 67 7 he and his son conveyed it to William Bowman, who in 1710 left it to his youngest son William. In 1735 Benjamin Bowman conveyed to Charles Docminique, from whom it passed to the Tattersalls and so to the Jolliffes with the main manor." It is called ' the reputed manor of Chilvertons,' but a court has been held for it in recent years. The manor-house, on the west side of Merstham street, is little more than a cottage, with the date 1598 upon it. In 1905 it was bought by Mr. Pazton Watson, who has carefully restored the house.

In the rental of 1522 and the Court Rolls, NORTH and SOUTH WORTH appear as holdings in Merst- ham Manor. It is possible that an error has been made in treating OrJe, in Reigate Hundred, in the Domesday Survey, as Worth in Sussex, counted in Surrey by error or by an indeterminate boundary. It is at least equally probable that this Worth, now commonly called The Wor, is meant.

The church of ST. KATHERINE CHURCH stands in a strangely isolated position on the Brighton road, at some distance from the village, upon a green knoll surrounded by tall old elms. A modern lych-gate gives access to the church- yard from the east, and broad gravelled paths lead to the south porch, with long flights of steps from the

��south, rendered necessary by the steep pitch. The churchyard, which has been extended towards the south within the last half-century, and must now be one of the largest in the county, is very nicely planted and carefully tended. It contains a few old and many modern tombstones. The ground rises above the church to the north, and falls rapidly to the southward, and the whole hill is formed of the Merstham stone, lying beneath the chalk, from which the church, with many other local buildings, has been built.

This stone is, externally and internally, the most conspicuous of the materials used in the building. In the original dressings and walling it appears through- out, mixed in the latter with flints from the chalk, and only partly replaced in the former by Bath stone in modern restorations. All things considered, the old stone has not weathered badly. The south chapel and parts of the chancel are faced with ashlar in this stone. The roofs of the nave and south chapel are covered with stone slabs, probably dug from the neighbouring hills, and like those known as Horsham slabs, the chancel, north chapel, and porch being roofed with tiles, and the aisles with lead. The well-proportioned timber spire is shingled.

The church consists of nave, 42 ft. 8 in. by 1 9 ft. 9 in., with aisles about I ft. longer by 7 ft. 9 in. wide, having a good sized porch 10 ft. by 8 ft. 3 in., and a western tower 1 5 ft. by 14 ft. 9 in., with walls no less than 4ft. 6 in. thick, chancel 30 ft. 6 in. by 1 9 ft., north (or Albury Manor) chapel 21 ft. loin, by 1 5 ft. 8 in. and south or St. Katherine's (or Alderstead Manor) chapel, 1 9 ft. gin. by lift. At the west corner of the north aisle vestries have been built with- in recent years. The whole building is of exceptional height and dignity for a Surrey church.

Probably the predecessor of the present church, that mentioned in Domesday, or one built, perhaps, to- wards the end of the 1 1 th century, consisted of a nave of the same size, with a shorter and narrower chancel. These, with the exception of the angles of the nave walls, were swept away in the closing years of the I 2th century, when a complete new church, substantially that which exists, took the place of the primitive building, the fine massive tower of three stories, the nave arcades of three bays, the lofty chancel arch, and parts of the chancel being the most prominent of the features of this period. The date may be set down at about 1 200, but there are points in the work such as some voussoirs with enriched cheveron ornament now lying loose which suggest a slightly earlier date. In the case of the particular detail referred to, however, it may be that the stones belonged to a doorway inserted in the early nave wall (about 1 1 80) before the aisles were thrown out.' 4 The south porch and north and south chapels were added, and the aisles and chancel greatly altered at various dates between c. 1390 and c. 1500. It is a debatable point whether the aisles were not widened, as well as heightened, in this later period. From the presence of a piscina of the earlier period in the south chapel it is possible that there may have been a smaller chapel on this site, rebuilt in its present form c. 1 500 ; or perhaps the piscina was removed from the end of the south aisle

��"Chan. Inq. I Edw. Ill (ist. not.), no. 35.

6 " Cal. Pat. 1334-8, p. 105.

68 Rental, Surr. Arch. Coll. xx, 97.

M P.C.C. 9 End.

��7 Manning and Bray,H<. of Surr. ii,z6o, 261. 71 Lord Hylton, information.

7" Rental, Surr. Arch. Coll. **, 98.

78 Manning and Bray, Hist, of Surr. ii, 261, from the Ct. R.

217

��74 These enriched cheveron voussoirs should be compared with those in the arch of south doorway at Shiere Church (q.v.), illus. in f.C.H. Surr. i, 433.

28

�� �