Page:The Victoria History of the County of Surrey Volume 3.djvu/442

 A HISTORY OF SURREY

��his custody," and this heir was probably the William Hansard who is found holding a fee in ' Bocheam ' (Bookham) and Cateworthe of the honour of Bramber in I2IO-I2,' 5 and again between 1234 and 1241. In 1273 John and James, sons of William Hansard, made a joint conveyance of lands in Little Bookham to the Prior of St. Mary Southwark, 16 and in 1275 John (here Sir John) died seised of the manor of Bookham, 17 leaving as his heir his nephew James son of James Hansard.

It seems however that James Hansard, the elder, had already made a grant to William de Braose (the overlord), 18 and in 1291 Mary widow of William de Braose had livery of the manor, which she is said to have held jointly with her husband before his death in 1290," and of which she enfeoffed Ralph de Camoys and Margaret her daughter, wife of Ralph, in 1303.* In 1306 Ralph and Margaret obtained licence to regrant the manor to Mary for life, with reversion to themselves and heirs of Margaret."

In the next year, consequent upon an assize of novel disseisin having been brought against them by James Hansard with regard to this manor, Ralph and Margaret summoned Mary to secure them against loss, and Mary thereupon agreed that if they or their heirs should be deprived of the manor, she and her heirs would make good such loss out of her manor of Wynesthorp in Yorkshire."

This is the last mention of the Hansards in con- nexion with the manor, which, however, in 1399 appears under the name of Bookham Hansard." Mary de Braose died in 1326, her next heir being her grandson Thomas son of Peter de Braose, then aged 26." Ralph and Margaret however had seisin of this manor in accordance with the above settlement," but before 1334 it was acquired from them by the said Thomas de Braose, who in that year had licence to convey it to Robert de Harpurdesford," for the purpose of settlement on himself and Beatrice his wife and their heirs.

Thomas died seised of the manor in 1 361, leaving a son John, who died in 1367, and in 1372-3 the manor was conveyed by Sir Peter de Braose and others to Beatrice, widow of Thomas, for her life, with remainder to her children, Thomas, Peter, Eliza- beth, and Joan, and their heirs respectively, and in default of such to the right heirs of Thomas." Beatrice died in I383, 18 and in 1395, on the death of her son Thomas, and of his infant children Thomas and Joan a few weeks later," the manor passed to Elizabeth, the daughter of Beatrice mentioned above and now wife of Sir William Heron. Elizabeth died without issue on 8 July 1 399,* and in the inquisition taken

��the next year on the Duke of Norfolk, one of the heirs of the Braoses, this manor was said to be held by Sir William Heron, 31 on whose death in 1404** it reverted to the Braose line represented by George son of John son of Peter de Braose. 33

George died in 1418 seised of this manor, which he held jointly with his wife Elizabeth, 34 when his next heir was found to be Hugh Cokescy, aged 15, son and heir of Walter Cokesey, son of Isabella wife of Walter Cokesey, kt., and daughter of Agnes wife of Uriah Seyntpere and sister of the said George. Hugh died in 1445," and his widow Alice, who had married Sir Andrew Ogard, in 1460," when the manors passed to Joyce Beauchamp, sister and heir of Hugh, and afterwards wife of Leonard Stapelton, but at this date a widow. Joyce died in 1473, leaving a son and heir, Sir John Grevyle, kt., 8 ' aged 40, who died in 1480 seised of the manor, 38 leaving a son and heir Thomas, who appears to have taken the name of Cokesey, and who was one of the Knights of the Bath at the coronation of Henry VII, and was created a knight banneret for his services at the battle of Stoke." On the death of Thomas without issue in 1498, Thomas, Earl of Surrey (afterwards Duke of Norfolk) and Sir Maurice Berkeley, as cousins and heirs of George Braose, had special livery of his estates. 40 Little Bookham, to the overlordship of which they had a claim as representatives of the Mowbrays, fell to the former, who settled it for life on his second son William Howard, 41 afterwards Lord Howard of Effingham and Lord Chamberlain. On the at- tainder of the Duke of Norfolk the grant was renewed by the king, and was confirmed by Edward VI in 1 5 5 3 " to William and his heirs. Lord Howard subsequently became involved in pecuniary difficulties, and in 1566, after rendering an account of his Surrey possessions to his great-nephew Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, begged that an estate might be found for his wife out of his manor of Little Bookham and his moiety of Reigate, the former being then ' lette into for certaine rent-corne for provisions of my house ' and worth z l per annum. 4 * Lord Howard of Effing- ham died seised of the manor in 1573," leaving a son and heir Charles, afterwards Earl of Nottingham, who in 1622 4S settled the manor on himself and his second wife Margaret for their lives, with remainder to his eldest surviving son Charles, Lord Howard. The said earl died in 1624," and his widow married William, Viscount Castlemaine, courts for the manor being held in their names in 1633 and 1635." The reversion, however, appears to have been pur- chased by Benjamin Maddox, whose son Howard Maddox died seised of this manor in 1637, leaving

��14 Pipe R. 1189-90 (Rec. Com.), 218.

Red Bk. ofExch. (Rolls Ser.), 561.

16 Feet of F. Div. Co. I & 2 Edw. I, no. n.

V Chan. Inq. p.m. Edw. I, file 1 1, no. i.

18 Cal. Close, 1272-9, p. 501.

19 Ibid. 1288-96, pp. 160, 162.

80 Cal. Pat. 1301-7, p. 147 j Chan. Inq. p.m. 31 Edw. I, no. 68.

81 Chan. Inq. p.m. 33 Edw. I, no. 264 ; Cal. Pat. 1301-7, p. 442 ; Feet of F. SUIT. Trin. 34 Edw. I, 134, 13.

88 Add. Chart. 20036.


 * > Chan. Inq. p.m. Hen. IV, file 17.

M Ibid. 19 Edw. II, no. 90.

46 Cal. Close, 1323-7, p. 437. Peter

��father of Thomas had claimed the manor againet Ralph and Margaret in 1 306 (Feet of F. Surr. 39 Edw. I, no. 1 3).

88 Cal. Pat. 1334-8, p. 62 ; Feet of F. Div. Co. 1 1 Edw. Ill, no. 22.

V Add. MSS. 5705.

88 Chan. Inq. p.m. 7 Ric. II, no. 15.

89 Ibid. 19 Ric. II, no. 7.

80 Suss. Arch. Ci.ll. viii, 100.

81 Chan. Inq. p.m. I Hen. IV, no. 71^. 81 Ibid. 6 Hen. IV, no. 21.

83 Pat. 24 Hen. VI, pt. i, m. 28 ; Suit. Arch. Call, viii, 101.

84 Chan. Inq. p.m. 6 Hen. V, no. 48.

85 Ibid. 24 Hen. VI, no. 36.

86 Ibid. 38-9 Hen. VI, no. 49.

��7 Ibid. 13 Edw. IV, no. 31. 88 Ibid. 20 Edw. IV, no. 72. 88 Dugdale, War-w. (2nd cd.), 707.

40 Coll. Tofog. and Gen. vi, 74 ; Pat. 14 Hen. VII, pt. ii, m. 4 j Suss. Arch. Coll. viii, 100.

41 L. and P. Hen. VIII, ix (i), 278

(50-

48 Pat. 7 Edw. VI, pt. ix, m. 12. 48 Lansd. MSS. ix, 49.

44 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), clxv, no. 172.

45 Recov. R. 20 Jas. I, rot. 1 5 ; Feet of F. Surr. 19 Jas. I.

46 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccclxxi, no. 69.

4 ' Manning and Bray, Hist, of Surr. ii, 704.

��336

�� �