A History of the County of Hampshire: Volume 3. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1908.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
The parish of Titchfield, containing 4,826 acres, of which 45 are covered by water, is situated to the south-west of the county, about 2 miles from the Solent. There are 1,491 acres of arable land, 1,239 of pasture, and 811 of woodland. (fn. 1) The ancient parish was of wide extent, its foreshore stretching 7 miles from the River Hamble to Stokes Bay, while it included Swanwick, Crofton, Lee, Stubbington, Hook, Funtley, Chark, Posbrook, Bromwich, Segenworth, and Meon. Of these, Crofton, with Stubbington and Lee-on-theSolent. Hook with Warsash, and Sarisbury with Swanwick were formed into civil parishes under the Local Government Act of 1894; Sarisbury with Swanwick, Crofton, and Hook with Warsash having been previously constituted ecclesiastical parishes in 1837, 1871, and 1872, respectively.
The parish stretches about seven miles up the Meon valley, and has one mile of foreshore called Titchfield Haven on the Solent. The town itself is grouped round a central market-place, with streets leading from it on the north, south, and east. There are no buildings of any particular architectural merit, but the square is picturesque, and the Bugle Inn, with its bay windows, gives character to it. The stocks once stood here in front of the inn, and the market-house and cage, once in the square, are now set up in Barry's Charity Yard to the north-west. The market-house is a wooden building with an open lower story, part of which, inclosed with brickwork and lined with oak, was the cage. The fire engine used to be kept behind it. The church stands a short distance to the south-west of the square, and the rectory is close to it on the south. To the north the town extends along the Fareham road, and at the north-west the houses follow the road which runs northward to the ruins of Place House. The River Meon forms the eastern limit of the town, and though now a small stream, was formerly a tidal harbour, for in the beginning of the seventeenth century Titchfield was a port, and the site of the wharves can still be traced in the tanyard close to the church. The third earl of Southampton, however, wished to reclaim the large stretch of sea-marsh lying between the town and the haven, and for that purpose built a sea-wall across the river mouth, which was completed in June, 1611. In the parish registers this is noted as the 'shutting out of Titchfield haven by one Richard Talbottes industrie under God's permissione.' The main road from Southampton to Fareham passes through the town, and the London and South-Western Railway crosses the parish from east to west, the nearest station being Fareham, about two miles distant. To the north are the ruins of Place House, being the buildings of the Premonstratensian Abbey converted into a mansion by Thomas Wriothesley, first earl of Southampton, and where his son Henry entertained both Edward VI and Elizabeth. In 1625 Charles I brought his bride to Titchfield immediately after their marriage, (fn. 2) while the State Papers for 1675 contain many allusions to the king's visit to Titchfield in that year, where he dined with Edward Noel, afterwards lord-lieutenant of Hampshire. (fn. 3) In November, 1688, when the Dutch invasion was imminent, 'Lord Gainsborough's house Titchfield' was taken for the queen presumably as a convenient point from which to escape to France. (fn. 4)
A bridge over the Meon close to Place House bears the date 1625. West Hill, a large house on rising ground west of the town, belongs to the executors of James Dredge, C.M.S., late owner of Engineering. St. Margaret's is a large red-brick house on high ground to the west of the town: a long range of building with picturesque chimneys and a tower at the south end. It appears to be entirely of early seventeenth-century date, with much of its original wooden framings, and stands in a pretty garden surrounded by a belt of trees. Several industries formerly of importance have now almost entirely disappeared, amongst them brick-making, of which the only remaining trace is a field called 'Clay-pits.' A garden called Skin House Piece marks the site of a building where parchment-dressing was formerly carried on. Gravel was worked at Meon in former days, and salt was obtained by evaporation from Hook and Warsash, where the name 'salterns' still survives. At Funtley in the north of the parish are the ruins of an old mill —the iron mill where ore was smelted, local ironstone being used. Early in the seventeenth century the third earl of Southampton, alarmed at the decay of trade caused by the suppression of the monastery, started a woollen industry, and men were brought from Alton 'to teach the poor the art of weaving.' The experiment was not altogether successful, although the older inhabitants can still remember the time when blankets were manufactured in the parish. The chief local industry to-day is strawberry growing; Titchfield Common, formerly called Swanwick Heath, and until comparatively recent times a stretch of waste heather land, being now cut up into small allotments generally consisting of a few acres of strawberry fields round a cottage. In the strawberry season every available person is employed in picking the fruit, the schools are closed, and all the children go to work in the strawberry fields. Swanwick is the chief station for this trade, a special staff and special trains being provided by the railway company during the busy season. Market gardening on a large scale is carried on in the parish, Titchfield supplying most of the cabbages for the Royal Navy, while turnip greens are largely grown for the London market, 'green cutting' being a recognized industry among the girls of the locality. There is a large tannery in the town on the site of the old wharves, and a jam factory on the common belonging to the Army and Navy Stores. Titchfield mill, probably the one mentioned in Domesday and later as being worth 20s., (fn. 5) is in the town on the Meon, and there is a windmill on Peel Common at Crofton. Though no traces of any dovecots remain, there is a field called the 'Dovecot' near Place House.
Crofton and Stubbington consist of a few dozen cottages and farms scattered over a tract of flat country, and only round the green in Crofton is there anything in the nature of a village. Crofton House, south-east of Titchfield, belongs to Col. Boyd, and Stubbington House, which stands at the corner of the green, is used as a naval school. Its bell is said to have come from Place House at Titchfield. Whiteleys, in the north of the parish, is an interesting old house formerly standing within the park of Place House, and now, from its isolated position, used as a smallpox hospital. In late years old land drains have been discovered near the house filled in with deer's horns. Lee-on-the-Solent is a modern watering place, there being very little more than the site to mark its ancient history.
Sarisbury, Locks Heath, Swanwick and Lower Swanwick form a modern parish on the east bank of the River Hamble. At Sarisbury there are two or three inns, a church, a schoolhouse, and a few cottages standing round a stretch of village green, along the north side of which runs the Southampton road. Swanwick is merely a collection of modern red-brick cottages straggling up the stretch of hill which leads from the railway station to the Southampton road. Lower Swanwick is a picturesque village lying on low ground along the east bank of the Hamble. Brooklands, a large house on the Hamble River, is the residence of Lt.-Col. Babington, J.P., and Cold East, south of the main road, belongs to Mr. Claude Montefiore. Sarisbury Court is the residence of Mr. W. Sarton. Curbridge is a tiny hamlet in the north of the parish.
Hill Head consisted, till lately, of a few cottages and fishermen's sheds at Titchfield Haven, but is now developing into a seaside resort with rows of houses along the shore. Chillinge is a desolate-looking house of Elizabethan date, now cut up into two cottages, standing alone by the seashore a little to the east of Hook. Hook House Park, east of the parish of Hook with Warsash, is well wooded, but a large tract of bare heather land stretches from there to Warsash. A great part of it is now being brought under cultivation as strawberry ground. Hook House, built by Mr. William Hornby, governor of Bombay, at the end of the eighteenth century, which was a reproduction of Government House, Bombay, was burnt down a few years ago. From Warsash House, the property of G. A. Shinley, the road descends a sharp hill to the shore where, by the Crab and Lobster inn, the crab tank of the well-known local industry is built. The village of Warsash is small, and its inhabitants are chiefly employed in the crab and lobster trade, which occupies them through the late autumn, winter, and spring, many of them in the summer working as sailors on the many yachts which make their head quarters in the Solent and Southampton Water.
The remains of the buildings of the Premonstratensian abbey of St. Mary, Titchfield, stand at a little distance to the north of the town. Founded in 1222 for a colony of White Canons from Halesowen, the ruins show that the church and claustral buildings were completed within a few years of the foundation, and, as far as can be judged, survived without material alteration till the suppression. The note in the register of the abbey (Harl. 6602, fol. 140–3) mentioning that John bishop of Elphin, eighteenth abbot, c. 1535, rebuilt the ruinous church, may refer to work done in the now destroyed east end. The church had an aisleless nave, a central tower, transepts with eastern chapels, and a presbytery, the whole being vaulted in stone. The cloister lay on the north of the church, the parlour, chapter-house, and warming house being on the east, and the dorter over them, extending with its subvault a considerable distance northwards; the frater with its subvault on the north, having the kitchen at its west end, and the cellarer's building and great guest hall on the west. The site of the infirmary is uncertain. The only parts of the church now standing are the nave walls and the lower part of the west wall of the south transept. The nave was vaulted in six bays, each bay being lighted by a pair of tall lancets, below the sills of which ran a moulded string at which the vaulting shafts stopped. The pulpitum seems to have stood in the west arch of the tower, with the east doorway from the cloister immediately to the west of it. Part of the west cloister door is also preserved, and in the western bay of the nave on the south is a third doorway, built up, but retaining a consecration cross on its east jamb. There was also a west doorway, and in the western angles of the nave were vices entered from within the church, their blocked doorways being yet to be seen. The church was entirely faced with wrought stone, and had a battering plinth, the bays being marked off by projecting buttresses. In the west wall were probably three tall lancets, the outer jambs of the northern and southern of which still remain. The arrangement of the eastern part of the church as shown on the separate plate was deduced from excavations undertaken by the Rev. G. W. Minns, with the help of Mr. W. H. St. J. Hope. The chapter-house, which was separated from the north transept by the inner parlour, was vaulted in two bays, with a vestibule of two bays opening to the cloister by a central doorway with clustered Purbeck marble shafts, and flanked by double openings with marble shafts and sills, parts of which yet remain blocked up in the wall. The doorway to a passage east of the frater remains, with a little of the frater wall, but beyond this nothing is left to show the details of the monastic buildings, except the traces of a barrel vault which covered the outer parlour in the western range against the north wall of the church.
The abbey was granted at the suppression to Thomas Wriothesley, who converted the buildings into a house for himself, a good deal of which still remains. The process of conversion is illustrated by a very interesting series of letters among the State Papers, which have been printed by Mr. Hope in the Archaeological Journal for Dec. 1906. After several schemes of adaptation had been proposed and abandoned, the monastic frater became the hall, and the chapter-house the chapel; the cloister being treated as the courtyard of a four-square house. The south side of the church became the main front, and a large gateway with octagonal angle turrets was planted across the nave, while the central tower was taken down to the roof level and the south transept destroyed, for the sake of symmetry. The remaining parts of the church lost their vaults and were divided into two stories, the porter's lodge being on the ground floor to the west of the gateway, its door, window, and fireplace being still to be seen. The thirteenth-century windows were blocked up and square-headed mullioned windows cut through the wall, while large brick arched fireplaces were set in the west wall of the nave, the south wall near the crossing, the gatehouse walls, and elsewhere, some of the cut brick chimney shafts still remaining. Wriothesley's work, where not made of the old material reused, is of Caen stone, and of excellent workmanship, without a trace of Renaissance feeling. His kitchen occupied the site of the monastic kitchen, and parts of walls of his date stand here, with two windows on the west, and part of a lamp niche in the north-west angle of the cloister. Till the latter part of the eighteenth century the whole house stood with little alteration, but it was then dismantled, part of its materials going to Cams Hall near Fareham, and has since then gradually decayed under the influences of weather, ivy, and general neglect. A still inhabited cottage on the north, adjoining the north-west angle of the monastic dorter, is probably in part of Wriothesley's time, and has a good four-centred stone fireplace in one of the ground-story rooms. A large walled garden incloses the church and monastic buildings, extending beyond them to east and west, and at some distance further to the west are the remains of a sixteenth-century building of Wriothesley's date, whose original use cannot be determined. On the north-west are the banks of large fish-ponds, and on them till lately stood a very large oak tree, now fallen. In a letter to Wriothesley reference is made to these ponds. The writer reports that he has viewed the fish-ponds, four of them being a mile in length—and that the bailiff will give Wriothesley 500 carp to stock them, so that in three or four years' time he may sell £20 or £30 worth of fish every year. (fn. 6) A general view by Grose of the buildings from the north-west, showing the north side of the frater and the west side of the dorter range, is preserved in Titchfield, and is here reproduced from a copy published in the Hants Field Club Proceedings, by permission of the Rev. G. W. Minns. A projecting chimney breast on the north of the frater is doubtless an addition of Wriothesley's time, and a rectangular block of masonry still existing on the south side of the frater seems to be the substructure of the bay window of the hall. A doorway with the arms of Southampton in the head, masking the western entrance to the inner parlour, may also have had a projecting window over it, lighting a stair which Wriothesley seems to have put here to lead to the first-floor rooms in the north transept and dorter range. The whole of Wriothesley's alterations were probably completed by 1542, in which year he received pardon for having fortified his manor house of Titchfield without licence, and in the same year, or a little earlier, Leland visited the house, and remarked on the fine conduit-house or fountain in the middle of the cloister, of which no trace now remains.
Old place-names are:—Byttenfeld, (fn. 7) Newe Court, Parva Mirabyll, Warishassefield, (fn. 8) and Chilling. (fn. 9) The parish was inclosed in 1859. The subsoil is gravel and clay and the surface loam.
In Domesday Book, TITCHFIELD is described as a berewick belonging to Meonstoke, and held by the king as it had been held by Edward the Confessor. (fn. 10) It is possible that part of the manor was in the hundred of Meonstoke and part in that of Titchfield, as it is certain that the hundred of Titchfield was in existence at the time of the Domesday Survey. (fn. 11) An account of the descent of the manor given by the abbot of Titchfield, in a dispute in the reign of Henry III, shows that William I held it by conquest, that it was given by his son William Rufus to Payn, ancestor of John de Gisors, (fn. 12) and that the latter forfeited it by his adherence to the king of France. (fn. 13) King John then granted from it £15 of rent to his supporter Robert de Vipont, and £5 worth to Oliver de Beauchamp, (fn. 14) but Robert died in 1227. Henry III in 1228 granted the manor to Hubert de Burgh, earl of Kent and justiciar, 'to hold as freely as John de Gisors held it until the king shall restore it to the heirs of John of his free will or by a peace.' (fn. 15) However, during the next year, Hubert de Burgh gave back Titchfield to Henry in exchange for the manors of Eylesham (Norfolk), and Westhall (Suffolk), (fn. 16) and the sheriff of Southampton was ordered to free the men holding in that part of Titchfield formerly granted to Hubert de Burgh, but now retained in the king's hands, from suit at shire and hundred courts. (fn. 17) In 1232 Henry granted the manor to Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, for the part endowment of the Premonstratensian abbey which he was about to found there, (fn. 18) and from this date until the Dissolution the manor remained with the abbot and convent of Titchfield. Free warren in their demesne lands of Titchfield was granted to the abbey by Edward I in 1294 (fn. 19) and afterwards confirmed by Henry VI, (fn. 20) who also granted many liberties and immunities to the abbey and convent in consideration of the many services rendered by them to himself and his queen on the occasion of their marriage in the abbey of St. Mary, Titchfield. One of the most important of these liberties was the right to hold an annual fair to last for five days. (fn. 21) John Sampson, bishop of Thetford, the last abbot of Titchfield, surrendered the possessions of the abbey to the king in 1537, (fn. 22) and in the same year the estates were granted to Thomas Wriothesley (fn. 23) (created earl of Southampton in 1547), for the services which he had rendered at the dissolution of the monasteries, subject to a pension of £20 to the late abbot. (fn. 24) Shortly afterwards he was knighted by the king, and on his death in 1550 he was succeeded by his son Henry, (fn. 25) who during his lifetime entertained both Edward VI and Elizabeth at Titchfield. Henry his son, third earl of Southampton, attainted in 1601 for his complicity in the plots of the earl of Essex, was condemned to imprisonment for life (fn. 26) and the confiscation of his estates; but on the accession of James I he was released, restored to his possessions and the earldom of Southampton. (fn. 27) He died abroad in 1624, and the property passed to his son Thomas, who, leaving no heirs male, was succeeded by his eldest daughter Elizabeth, who married Edward Noel, first earl of Gainsborough. (fn. 28) Their only son died without issue, and the Titchfield estate ultimately passed to their two granddaughters and co-heiresses Elizabeth, who married William Henry Bentinck first duke of Portland, and Rachel wife of the second duke of Beaufort. The third duke of Beaufort acquired both moieties of the property in 1711, (fn. 29) and the fifth duke sold the manor to Peter Delme in 1741. (fn. 30) On the failure of male heirs to the Delmé family in 1894 the estate passed to the descendants of two co-heiresses: Elizabeth wife of the Rev. C. Delmé Radcliffe, and Julia married to Captain James Arthur Murray, R.N., the present joint-owners being their respective sons, Colonel Emilius Charles Delmé Radcliffe, and George Delmé Murray. (fn. 31)
Mention is made in Domesday of one mill in Titchfield worth 20s., (fn. 32) but it does not appear to have been included in the grant of Titchfield to the abbot, as in 1307 Simon and John Whorstede received licence to alienate in mortmain to the chapel of St. Elizabeth, Winchester, a rent of 20s. issuing out of the mill of Titchfield. (fn. 33) In 1272 two mills and certain lands in Titchfield were granted to Henry, abbot of Titchfield, by Philip de Molyns for a rent of 33s. 4d. (fn. 34) However, before 1330, John de Molyns released this rent, since his release was confirmed by letters patent in that year. (fn. 35)
There was a market at Titchfield in 1086, and though it was said to be injurious to a neighbouring market it was still existing in 1535, when Richard Towris reports to Lord Lisle that the clerk of the market was keeping his court at Titchfield and had commanded that no man should sell wheat above 8s. a quarter on pain of imprisonment and forfeiture. There is no record of its history after this date. (fn. 36) In 1424 the abbot received permission by charter to inclose and make a park of 60 acres of land, 10 acres of pasture, and 50 acres of wood in Titchfield. There is an interesting reference to this park in the State Papers for the year 1635, when notification was made to the Lords of the Admiralty that the officers of the Navy had contracted for timber from the wood of the earl of Southampton at the rate of 22s. the load, and that 'they had had assurance the whole kingdom could not better 1,000 trees agreed for there.' They also added that the ministers of the earl 'had acquainted them with the prejudice sustained by the Earl in having his timber so long restrained from sale, since ready money for the disengagement of his debts was the principle motive occasioning his felling thereof.' That the timber grown in this park was highly valued is shown by a letter of Capt. Anthony Deane to the Naval Commissioners in 1668, in which he writes: 'Mr. Eastwood gave you notice of the timber felled in Titchfield Park and bought by private men, and all the best trees docked for buckets, which would grieve anyone to behold such strange destruction to such rare goods and indeed jewels.' He adds that he had treated about 500 loads at 38s. the load. He knew of no timber like it except in the New Forest. (fn. 37)
Apart from the manor of Titchfield proper, there appears to have been an estate in Titchfield called the manor of Titchfield in the sixteenth century, probably owing its origin to the purchase by Thomas de Overton from John de Masseworth of 1 carucate and 6 acres of land in Chark and Titchfield in the fourteenth century. (fn. 38) The estate subsequently passed to his daughter Isabel and her husband Thomas le Warrener, (fn. 39) who held it until 1407. (fn. 40) From them it appears to have descended in a direct line through five generations to Joan Tawke, who married firstly Robert Ryman and secondly Edmund Bartlett, who both predeceased her. (fn. 41) She held the manor at her death in 1561, (fn. 42) when it passed to her son William Ryman for life with reversion to his brother Humphrey. The latter appears to have died during his brother's lifetime, (fn. 43) and from this date all assumed status of manor was lost, and the estate evidently merged in Titchfield proper.
At the time of the Domesday Survey BROMWICH (Burnewick xi cent.; Bromwych, Brunewych, xiv cent.; Bromwiche, xviii cent.) was held by Walkelin bishop of Winchester of the king, though not as a part of his bishopric. Angot held it under him, and it had been held by Edric in the time of Edward the Confessor. (fn. 44) At what date it came into the possession of the Bromwich family does not appear, but in the fourteenth century it was held by Lucas Bromwich and John Bromwich successively. (fn. 45) By 1428 it had passed to the Uvedale family, John Uvedale, son of Sybil de Scures, having acquired the property probably by purchase from Thomas Bromwych. (fn. 46)
In 1434 it was granted or sublet to Reginald West, Lord De La Warr, who was probably connected with the Uvedale family, for in the time of Henry III a certain Thomas Uvedale married Margaret daughter of Roger De La Warr. (fn. 47) On the death of Lord De La Warr in 1451 the manor again reverted to the Uvedales, and was held for a time by William son of John Uvedale. (fn. 48) By a deed dated 1480–1 it was granted by Thomas son of William Uvedale to his father's brother Sir Thomas, to hold jointly with Agnes Paulet his wife, (fn. 49) and shortly afterwards it was leased to a certain John Estuy for twelve years at a rent of 16 marks and 2 pence. The lessor granted to the tenant annually one robe of the suit of a groom, and the latter was to pay the fifteenth to the king when payable and all the church dues. (fn. 50) Before his death, in 1513, Henry Uvedale settled the manor on his wife Mary, (fn. 51) but in 1530–1 the presumptive heirs to the manor all sold their interest in the reversion to Sir Henry Wyatt. (fn. 52) Mary Uvedale survived him, however, and his son, Sir Thomas Wyatt, sold the reversion in 1538 to Sir Thomas Wriothesley. (fn. 53) Two years previously Mary Uvedale had given up her life interest, (fn. 54) and later Sir Thomas Wyatt made a fresh conveyance in confirmation of the Wriothesley title. (fn. 55) The same year the manor was granted to Sir Thomas Wriothesley's sister Anne Knight and her husband for their lives and that of the survivor at a rent of 6d. a year, but it was regranted to the donor almost immediately 'in consideration of the many benefits received from him.' (fn. 56) Ten years later the manor was granted to Roger Polstin and his wife, servants of Thomas Wriothesley (now earl of Southampton), with the explanation that it was for services to be rendered as well as for those already received. They were to hold it for three lives at a rent of £10, but the grant did not include the right of fishing in the pond by the manor house. (fn. 57) Henry Wriothesley succeeded to his father's estates in 1550, and thence they passed to his son Henry, who in 1617 leased the 'messuage and farm called Bromwich Farm' to Philip Gifford at a rent of £10 16s.—the tenant was to make all payments and duties 'for the King's Majesty, the Church, the Parish and the poore of the same.' Also twice in every year he was to provide for the officers of the earl when they came to hold courts there 'sufficient meat and drink and other provision befitting their officers and servants, and sufficient room hay litter and provender for their beasts.' (fn. 58) On the expiration of this lease another for twenty-one years at a rent of £10 16s. was granted to Sir Henry Wallop, (fn. 59) who had married the sister of the third earl of Southampton. Bromwich followed the descent of Titchfield until 1734, when on the sale shortly afterwards of a considerable part of the Titchfield property to the duke of Beaufort it was retained by the duke of Portland, in whose possession it was in 1762. From him it was purchased by Mr. William Hornby, governor of Bombay at the end of the eighteenth century, in whose family the property remained until the death of Mrs. Hood, the last survivor of the family, whose husband, the Hon. Albert Hood, is the present owner. (fn. 60)
There is no mention of the manor of CHARK in the Domesday Survey, but it is probable that it was included at this date in that part of Titchfield which was held by the king. Some time in the twelfth century the overlordship was granted to John de Gisors, who was certainly holding lands in Hampshire as early as 1161. (fn. 61) He never held Chark, however, in demesne, but received a rent of 50s. from the sub-tenants, 40s. of which he granted in alms to the priory of Hamble. On the forfeiture of the estates of de Gisors the remaining 10s. rent escheated to the crown, and King John granted it to Oliver de Beauchamp as part of 100s. of land and rent which he had licence to acquire in Chark and Titchfield in exchange for the manor of Melbourne in Derbyshire (fn. 62)
The rent was still paid to the De Beauchamp family in 1302, but eight years later Richard de Beauchamp granted it, together with a messuage and a carucate of land in Titchfield and Chark, to William son of John de Masseworth. (fn. 63) From John de Masseworth (son of John) it passed in 1356 to Thomas de Overton, (fn. 64) who died in 1361, and two years later it was conveyed to his niece Isabel and her husband, Thomas de Warrener. (fn. 65)
The under-tenants of this manor in the twelfth century were members of the family of Bruton— probably the Hamo Brito and Gilbertus le Bret who alienated lands in Chark to Quarr Abbey. (fn. 66) In 1292 William Bruton died seised of nine virgates of land in Chark held in socage paying 10s. rent to Richard de Beauchamp. (fn. 67) About the middle of the thirteenth century Richard Bruton was holding a moiety of Chark, while in 1316 William Bruton was returned as holding the vill of Chark, (fn. 68) which, however, from this date disappears from the assessments of the Feudal Aids. It was probably included in the one-third of a knight's fee in Warde held by him in 1346, (fn. 69) and mentioned below in the descent of Lee Bruton, and it may be suggested, therefore, that it passed at some time before the year 1428 to Thomas Wayte. (fn. 70) It was certainly settled on John Wayte and his heirs in 1453. (fn. 71) The subsequent history of the manor is the same as that of Lee (q.v.).
At the time of the Dissolution the abbey of Quarr held a farm in Chark valued at £12 2s. 6d., (fn. 72) which was probably part of the grant made to the abbey by the Bruton family about the thirteenth century, when the monks received permission to have their boat free of toll along the seaboard of Chark or Lee, and to send their men to grind their corn at Chark. (fn. 73)
At the time of the Domesday Survey CROFTON was held by Count Alan of Brittany as it had been by Ulward, 'who could betake himself where he would with this land.' (fn. 74) It is probable that Crofton formed part of the possessions of Edwin earl of Mercia, the whole of which were granted to Alan of Brittany for his services at the Conquest, and afterwards formed the honor of Richmond, of which Crofton was held certainly as late as 1355. (fn. 75) Some time during the twelfth century the manor seems to have been granted to the Furneaux family, with whom it remained until 1331, (fn. 76) but shortly after that date it apparently passed, probably through some family connexion, to Maurice le Brune, who died seised of the manor then termed 'a liberty called Crofton,' belonging to the manor of Rowner, in 1355–6, leaving a son and heir William, who was holding the same in 1358–9. (fn. 77)
Of the subtenants of the Furneaux Geoffrey Talbot was seised of the manor in the reign of John, (fn. 78) and was succeeded by his son Lawrence, (fn. 79) who married a certain Benedicta, and their daughter Alice became the wife of Henry of Glastonbury, who was in possession of the property in 1316. (fn. 80) After the death of Henry the manor was settled on Alice with reversion to her son Henry, on whose death without heirs it passed to John son of John le Venour, as son and heir of Eva sister of Geoffrey Talbot. He released his right to Benedicta widow of Lawrence and Elias de Cherleton, her second husband. (fn. 81) In May, 1331, licence was granted to Elias and Benedicta to alienate the manor in mortmain to the abbot and convent of Titchfield on condition that they should find a chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in the chapel of St. Edmund, Crofton, for the soul of Edward II and for the souls of Elias and Benedicta after their deaths; the abbot undertook to regrant the manor to the grantors for life. (fn. 82) By a charter given four years later the abbot received a grant of free warren in his demesne lands in Crofton. (fn. 83) In 1537 the last abbot of Titchfield surrendered the manor with his other possessions to the king, and it was granted the same year to Thomas Wriothesley. (fn. 84) From this date Crofton follows the descent of the manor of Titchfield (q.v.).
There were two manors in FUNTLEY (Funtelei, xi cent.; Funceley, xiii cent.; Funtelegh, xiv cent.) at the time of the Domesday Survey. Of these, one (fn. 85) held before the Conquest by Ulward under Earl Godwin had passed in 1086 into the hands of Count Alan of Brittany, (fn. 86) whose descendants, except for one short period, held the overlordship until 1279, when the honor of Richmond was in the hands of Peter of Savoy. (fn. 87) The history of the overlordship for the next two centuries is obscure, but in 1305 a dispute arose between the king and Henry of Glastonbury as to the custody of the heir. (fn. 88) The matter was settled in favour of the king, who granted the lordship to his daughter Mary, nun of Ambresbury. (fn. 89) On her death the overlordship was possibly granted or restored to Henry of Glastonbury, and given by him with the manor of Crofton to the abbot and convent of Titchfield, as in 1338 the manor of Funtley was granted to the latter to be held as of their manor of Crofton. (fn. 90)
The first undertenant of the manor of Funtley Parva of whom there is record was Nicholas Fostebire, who held one messuage and half a hide of land there (fn. 91) in 1269–70. The manor appears to have been granted to the family of St. Martin later in the century, as in 1303–4 William de Pageham was holding it by gift of his father-in-law, Hugh de St. Martin. (fn. 92) It then consisted 'of a hall built with tiles, a grange and ox-house built with straw … 90 acres of arable land … 20 acres of pasture worth an acre per annum 2d., 4 acres of meadow worth an acre per annum 2s., one water mill worth per annum 10s., 3 acres of large wood and 3 acres of underwood worth an acre per annum 6d., and eight customary tenants who paid rent per annum 21s. 9d.' (fn. 93) From William it passed to his son John, whose daughter Mary granted it in 1338 to the abbot and convent of Titchfield, (fn. 94) in whose possession it remained until the Dissolution, when it passed with the other Titchfield property to Thomas Wriothesley, earl of Southampton, and followed the descent of Titchfield (q.v.).
The second manor in Funtley was held at the time of Edward the Confessor by a certain Turi under Earl Godwin. In 1086 it was in the possession of Ranulf Flamme, (fn. 95) and being confiscated with the rest of his estates in 1100, passed into the king's hands, (fn. 96) and was granted some time prior to the year 1241 to the Arundel family, (fn. 97) in whose possession it remained until 1615, (fn. 98) after which the rights of overlordship probably lapsed.
Of the subtenants Hugh de Hoyvill was holding one-fourth of a fee in Funtley in 1241, which he had inherited from Richard de Hoyvill his father, which passed to Philip de Hoyvill, probably his son, who in 1294 was granted free warren in his demesne lands there. (fn. 99) Seventy years later William de Hoyvill, probably a grandson, was assessed in the Feudal Aids as part owner of the vill. (fn. 100) In 1346 it was held by William de Hoyvill, (fn. 101) probably son of the former one, but before 1428 it had passed to the Uvedale family, John Uvedale being then in possession. (fn. 102) It then followed the descent of Wickham until 1721, when it was held by Sir Richard Corbett, from whom it was purchased by Jonathan Rashleigh, M.P. for Fowey, Cornwall, in 1724. (fn. 103) It apparently passed out of the hands of the Rashleigh family at the end of the eighteenth century, and since then the property appears to have been broken up. (fn. 104)
At the time of the Domesday Survey HOOK (Houch, xi cent.; Hoke, xiii cent.; Houke, xiv cent.; Hooke, xv cent. onwards) was held by Hugh de Port, (fn. 105) and the overlordship probably followed the descent of the St. John barony (see Wickham), though it is difficult to be certain of this after the fourteenth century. (fn. 106) In 1086 one German was holding Hook of Hugh de Port, but for the next two centuries its history is unknown. At the beginning of the fourteenth century the vill of Hook was held jointly by Aymer de Valence, Roger Mortimer, John Pageham, and Richard of Winchester, (fn. 107) but of these holdings the two former only appear to have had any manorial history. On the death of Aymer de Valence without issue in 1324, (fn. 108) his property in Hook, afterwards known as Hook Valence, probably passed to John de Hastings, one of his heirs, and through him in a direct line to John earl of Pembroke, whose widow Philippa, daughter of Edward Mortimer, was holding it in 1389. (fn. 109) She married as her third husband, between 1393 and 1400, Thomas Poynings lord St. John of Basing (fn. 110)—a connexion which, assuming that the St. Johns were still the overlords of Hook, might explain the possession of Hook by the Wests, also connexions of the Mortimers in the sixteenth century. In 1488 Elizabeth Uvedale was holding 16 messuages and 132 acres of land in Hook of Thomas West, Lord De La Warr, (fn. 111) and this property was held until his death in 1501 by her son Robert. (fn. 112) Sixty years later Thomas West sold the manor of Hook Valence to Sir Richard Lyster, son-in-law of Thomas Wriothesley, (fn. 113) and as the latter died possessed of the manor in 1550, (fn. 114) it probably passed to him by some family settlement. From this date until 1762 it follows the descent of Swanwick (q.v.).
The manor of HOOK MORTIMER held by Robert Mortimer in 1316 probably escheated to the king on his attainder in 1330, but apparently was restored with the earldom to Roger his grandson in 1355, as Roger's son Edmund was holding rents in Hook Mortimer in 1381, 'from divers tenants there who hold according to the custom of the manor, as of the ancient demesne of the crown.' (fn. 115) Edmund Mortimer died without issue in 1425, and the Mortimer estates went to his nephew Richard duke of York, (fn. 116) whose eldest son Edward afterwards became Edward IV, and in this way the estate again came into the king's hands. In 1540 Henry VIII granted Hook Mortimer to Anne of Cleves, (fn. 117) and in the following year to Queen Catherine as her jointure; (fn. 118) in 1543 it was leased for thirty years to Edmund Clerke, (fn. 119) and if, as seems probable, (fn. 120) the manor of East Hook can be identified with Hook Mortimer, it passed before 1550 to Thomas Wriothesley earl of Southampton, who also possessed the manor of Hook Valence. (fn. 121) From this date the descent of both is identical with that of Titchfield until 1734, after which it is the same as that of Bromwich (q.v.). (fn. 122)
A chapel appears to have been opened in Hook in the fourteenth century, without the authority of the bishop, and the archdeacon was therefore sent to admonish those responsible. As, however, services continued to be held, the offenders were summoned to appear before the bishop in Winchester Cathedral. They did not appear, and sentence of excommunication was passed upon them in 1379. (fn. 123) In what way the dispute was finally settled does not appear, but the chapel was still existing at West Hook in 1570–1. (fn. 124)
LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT (Ly, La Lige, xiii cent.; Lye xv cent.) is not mentioned by name in the Domesday Survey, but was probably included at that date in the fee held by Count Alan of Brittany in Funtley and Crofton, which subsequently became part of the honour of Richmond. (fn. 125) In 1302 Richard Bruton died seised of land in Lee held of Isolda le Brun as of the honour of Richmond 'in manu ipsius Isolde existent ibidem.' (fn. 126) The overlordship had probably passed to her husband William with the liberty of Crofton, 'by commission' of John of Brittany. (fn. 127) There seems to be no further documentary evidence as to the descent of the overlordship, but it was probably for some time at least included in Crofton liberty.
Of the subtenants Roger Markes seems to have held one carucate of land, subsequently known as the manor of LEE MARKES, about the middle of the thirteenth century, (fn. 128) and in 1327 Edmund Markes, probably son of Roger, paid 2s. subsidy, presumably assessed on the same estate. (fn. 129) Thirty years later William Markes was holding land in Lee of Thomas Warrener, which was to pass to the abbot and convent of Titchfield on the death of William, and in this way it came into the hands of Thomas Wriothesley at the Dissolution.
In 1236 Gilbert de Bret (alias Brut) died seised of the manor of 'Ly' (which subsequently became known as Lee Britten or Bruton), being 1 carucate, by the service of a third of a knight's fee of the honour of Richmond, and some years later this was held by the guardian of the heir of John le Bret from Peter of Savoy as of the honour of Richmond. (fn. 130) The manor seems to have passed from John to Richard Bruton, who held a moiety of Lee and Chark as one-third of a knight's fee by the serjeanty of crossing the sea with the king, and who was succeeded by his son Richard. The latter died in 1302, leaving a son William, a minor, who was holding in 1327 and probably in 1346 if, as seems likely, Warde was a local name for the Bruton estates in Lee and Chark. (fn. 131) From William the manor passed to his son John, and from Alice daughter of John to her son Thomas, who died without heirs at the end of the fourteenth century. He appears to have alienated it to Thomas Wayte, as in 1310 the latter was sued by John Wallop, who claimed the manor as descendant of Alice sister of William Bruton. John's claim was allowed, (fn. 132) but the reversion was apparently granted to Thomas Wayte, as in 1428 he was holding one-third of a knight's fee in Warde jointly with the abbot of Titchfield. (fn. 133) The history of the manor for the next hundred years is obscure, but in 1528 John Wayte, a descendant of Thomas, leased the manor of Lee to Arthur Plantagenet. (fn. 134) In 1530 John Wayte conveyed the manor to Sir Richard Lyster, from whom it probably passed to his father-in-law, Sir Thomas Wriothesley, some time within the next ten years, for in 1540 a dispute was tried before the Privy Council between Wriothesley and one Walter Chandler, Walter having complained that Sir Thomas had withheld the manor of Lee from him without paying for it. The council, however, decided that the charge was wholly unfounded, and Chandler was ordered to make apology and restitution. (fn. 135) From this date the descent of both manors is the same as that of Titchfield (q.v.).
At the time of Domesday MEON belonged to the bishop of Winchester, having been held previously by a certain Toui who rented one-half of the king and held the other by grant from the earl of Hereford, (fn. 136) on whose death the whole appears to have been granted by the king to the bishop. No further mention of Meon is found until 1510, when Thomas Uvedale granted to Henry Uvedale his heir lands and rent in Meon. (fn. 137) The property then follows the history of Bromwich (q.v.) until 1550, when Thomas Wriothesley earl of Southampton died seised of the same, then for the first time called the manor of Meon. (fn. 138) After this date there is no further reference to the so-called manor, which probably became merged in that of Bromwich.
POSBROOK (Passebroc or Postbrook xiii cent.) is not mentioned in Domesday Book, and very little is known of its early history. It appears to have been held by members of the Passebroc family in the early part of the thirteenth century, (fn. 139) and in 1243–4 it was acquired either by purchase or grant from a certain William de Setteville by Isaac abbot of Titchfield. (fn. 140) A grant of free warren in Posbrook was made to the abbey in the reign of Edward I, (fn. 141) and the manor remained in the possession of the monastery until the Dissolution in 1538, (fn. 142) when it was granted to Thomas Wriothesley as part of the abbey estates, and from this date the descent of the manor is the same as that of Titchfield (q.v.).
Though the name of QUOB (Quabbe, xiii-xvii cents.) now survives only in Quob Farm and Copse, there were formerly two separate estates of that name, one of which belonged to the lords of the manor of North Fareham in the thirteenth century, and of which the following mention is made. In the reign of Edward I Emma de Roches granted her son Hugh 'the land of Quabbe in the parish of Titchfield.' (fn. 143) In 1571 Sir Richard Pexall, descendant of Hugh, died seised of land and tenements in 'Quabbe' (fn. 144) and his grandson Sir Pexall Brocas was holding the same in 1610. (fn. 145) In 1635 the property, then called for the first time a manor, was in the possession of Thomas Brocas, (fn. 146) and certainly as late as 1762 the lords of North Fareham received £1 yearly as lords' rent from 'Quabbe' Farm, (fn. 147) which had evidently become merged in the manor of North Fareham.
The second holding that bore the name was first mentioned in 1311, when Richard de Beauchamp held one tenement called 'La Quabbe' with two gardens, 6 acres of arable land, 5 acres of meadow, 3 acres of wood, 20 acres of pasture, and an assize rent of 39s. 2d.—property which Oliver de Beauchamp his ancestor had licence to acquire in Titchfield in exchange for the manor of Melbourne in Derby, granted to King John. It was held by the service of doing suit at the court of the king at Titchfield and by a rent of 16d. yearly. Richard apparently held it only for the life of William de Masseworth, but his co-heiresses put in a claim for the property, which was disallowed, and the escheator was ordered to deliver up the land to William, (fn. 148) and on his death, in 1335, the estate passed to his brother Walter, who held it by the service of doing guard at Portchester for 30 days. (fn. 149) In 1361 Thomas de Overton died seised of the manor of 'Quabbe,' (fn. 150) which had probably (like the second Titchfield manor) been included in the carucate of land, 6 acres of meadow, 12 acres of wood and rent in Titchfield and Chark acquired by him in 1356 by purchase from John de Masseworth. (fn. 151) William, brother and heir of Thomas, appears to have died shortly after his brother, and the estate passed in 1363 to his daughter Isabel and her husband Thomas le Warrener, (fn. 152) who three years later acquired the onethird part of the manor which Agnes, widow of William, was holding in dower. (fn. 153) During the next seventy years the estate appears to have been broken up, since there is no further mention of the manor as such, while in 1426 Thomas Warrener was possessed of only one toft and 2 virgates of land called Quabland in the vill of Titchfield—'which he held jointly with Isabel Overton, formerly his wife.' (fn. 154) It is probable that this property as well as the rest of the Overton estate gradually became merged in Titchfield proper.
SEGENWORTH (Sugion, xi cent.; Suggenwerch, xiii cent.; Sokyngworth, xiv cent.; Sechingworth, Siginworth, xvi cent.) was one of the lordships granted to Hugh de Port by William I, and at the time of Domesday Herebald held it from him as Ulric had held it under King Edward. (fn. 155) At the end of the thirteenth century William de Stratton was holding one knight's fee of Robert de St. John, (fn. 156) descendant of the De Ports; but by the middle of the fourteenth century it had passed to the family of Wayte, and was then in the hands of William Wayte. (fn. 157) In the fifteenth century it was held by Margaret Wayte, wife of another William Wayte, (fn. 158) and through her it descended to John Wayte, probably a grandson, who leased the manor in 1528–9 to Arthur Plantagenet Viscount Lisle, his kinsman. (fn. 159) From this date the descent of the manor is the same as that of Lee Britten (q.v.).
At the time of Domesday STUBBINGTON (Stulbinton, Stubynton, Stobington, xiii cent.), which under King Edward formed part of the possessions of Earl Godwin, was held by the De Port family, (fn. 160) from whom it passed to the St. Johns, descendants of the De Ports, early in the thirteenth century, and in whose possession the overlordship remained until 1309, when it was granted by John de St. John, lord of Basing, to the abbot and convent of Titchfield. (fn. 161)
From an early date Stubbington was held under the St. Johns by Reginald de Mohun and his successors, who before the end of the thirteenth century had granted it to John de Rayny, (fn. 162) whose grandson, William de Rayny, about 1293 granted all his lands in Stubbington to the abbey of Titchfield, (fn. 163) which, during the following century, acquired other lands in Stubbington by various grants. (fn. 164) This grant was confirmed by royal charter in 1320, and mention is made in the same deed that the abbot was freed from all suits and services due to him from such land. (fn. 165) A grant of free warren was made to the abbot in 1293. (fn. 166) It continued to be noted separately among the possessions of the abbey until 1428, (fn. 167) from which date it disappears from the Titchfield records, and was probably included in Titchfield itself.
There is no mention of SWANWICK (Swanewik, xv cent.) in Domesday Book, and the first record relating to it is in 1231, when Henry III confirmed to Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, the gift made to him by Humphrey de Millers of all the land and rent in Swanwick, which Humphrey had acquired by grant of William, bishop of Avranches. (fn. 168) This land became part of the possessions of the newly founded abbey of Titchfield, and was held of the bishop of Avranches. (fn. 169) A grant of free warren was made to the abbot by Edward I in 1294. (fn. 170) Swanwick was held by the abbey (fn. 171) until surrendered to the king with the other possessions of Titchfield Abbey in 1537, and in the same year it was granted to Thomas Wriothesley, (fn. 172) and from this date follows the descent of Titchfield until the first half of the eighteenth century, when it was retained by the duke of Portland on the sale of a considerable part of the Titchfield estate to the duke of Beaufort between 1734 and 1741. (fn. 173) Its descent is then the same as that of Bromwich (q.v.).
The church of ST. PETER, TITCHFIELD, has a chancel with south chapel, nave with aisles and south-west vestry, and west tower, and is a fine and interesting building, with a long architectural history, the lower part of its tower and the west end of the nave being probably the oldest piece of ecclesiastical architecture now standing in Hampshire. The church to which they belonged had an aisleless nave probably of the same dimensions as the present, a chancel and a western porch, the latter probably of two stories. The feature is an early one, and as there are none of the characteristics of the latest style of pre-Conquest architecture to be seen, it is possible that this building may have its origin in the ninth century, or even earlier. Its subsequent history was that a south aisle was added to the nave in the twelfth century, a new west doorway made, and probably towards the end of the century a new chancel arch. The tower seems to have been raised to its present height about the same time, and about 1220 the chancel was rebuilt round the older one, becoming of the full width of the nave, and the chancel arch was now, or perhaps later, widened, the old responds being reused. About 1320 the south chapel was built, and in the fifteenth century the present north aisle of the nave was built, probably superseding an older one, of which nothing remains, the south and east walls of the chancel being remodelled to harmonize with the new work. In 1867 the twelfth-century south arcade of the nave gave place to a modern one, the whole of the south aisle being rebuilt, and a few years since a vestry was added at its south-west angle.
The chancel has a fifteenth-century east window of five lights, and three three-light windows of the same date on the north. On either side of the east window are two tall canopied niches for images of the patron and other saints, one over the other, also of the fifteenth century. At the south-east are three thirteenthcentury sedilia under moulded arches, the eastern seat being higher than the other two; to the east is a trefoiled piscina with a modern projecting bowl, and at the west a thirteenth-century priest's door. The rest of the south wall is taken up by an arcade of two bays, c. 1320, with clustered shafts and foliate capitals, that of the central shaft having four winged beasts among the foliage. The arches are of two orders with wave-moulds, and the bases rest on a dwarf wall, not coming down to the floor level.
The chancel arch is pointed, of one order with chamfered angles, springing from half-round responds, the southern capital having plain foliage, while that on the north has been mutilated and repaired without ornament. The chancel has a fifteenth-century roof with arched principals and trussed rafters, its other woodwork being entirely modern.
The south chapel, which is of the same length as the chancel, and slightly wider, has an original east window of three trefoiled ogee lights, and three twolight south windows of a similar type, a later fourcentred doorway having been inserted under the second window from the east. At the south-east are three trefoiled sedilia, also original, the eastern of which is higher than the rest, and has a rounded back, and to the east is a trefoiled piscina of the same date. At a little distance from the east wall are large corbels in the north and south wall, 7 ft. from the floor, to carry a beam at the back of the altar; a moulded string over the piscina stops at this line, and this space at the east was evidently screened off to serve as a vestry. The centre of the chapel is occupied by the splendid Wriothesley monument described below.
The south arcade of the nave, of three bays, and the south aisle, are modern, in fourteenth-century style; but the north arcade, of four bays, with tall and slender clustered piers, moulded arches, and octagonal moulded capitals and bases, is a pretty piece of fifteenth-century detail. The east window of the north aisle, of five lights under a segmental head, is flanked by elaborate contemporary canopied niches, and there is a third niche set against the north face of the east respond of the arcade. There are in this aisle four three-light windows on the north and one on the west, all contemporary with the arcade, and the roof is probably plain work of the same date. The nave roof is old, with trussed rafters, but the tie-beams are modern, and at the east end is a rood beam set up in 1889 with a wall painting of the Crucifixion over it. On the west wall of the nave is a large wall painting of the miraculous draught of fishes, and above it, high in the wall, a blocked roundheaded window, now opening to the top stage of the tower, but, before its building, to the open air, above the roof of the early porch.
The west doorway is a fine specimen of the latter part of the twelfth century, of three ornamented orders with nook shafts. It opens to the west porch or ground story of the tower, whose walls are only 2 ft. 3 in. thick. The western arch of the tower is plain and roundheaded, in large blocks of Binstead and iron stone, like those used in the Roman east gate of Portchester Castle. The angle quoins are of the same character, the walls being of rubble, and above the arch a bonding course of Roman bricks, three deep, runs round the tower, and is continued across the west end of the nave. At a late repair it was found to go right through the wall. The belfry stage of the tower has single lights, probably c. 1200, and the tower is finished with a rather heavy wooden spire. Its upper stages are reached by an external stair on the north, leading to a doorway in its north-east angle.
The font at the north-west of the nave is modern, and the only monument of much interest, except that of the Wriothesleys, is a small tablet on the north wall of the chancel to William Chamberlaine of Beaulieu, 1608, showing a man and his wife kneeling under a cornice with heraldry, and two sons and two daughters below.
The Wriothesley monument, commemorating the first earl and countess of Southampton, and their son the second earl, was set up in accordance with the will of the latter, proved 7 February, 1582, by which the enormous sum of £1,000 was left for the making of 'two faire monuments' in the 'chapel of the parish church of Tichell, co. Southampton.' The directions for two monuments were however ignored, and one only was made, on which the three alabaster effigies rest. It is a raised rectangular tomb, with projecting pilasters at the angles, which carry tall obelisks; the central part of the tomb is raised some feet above the rest, and on it lies the effigy of Jane countess of Southampton, 1574, that of her husband the first earl, 1551, lying at a lower level on the north, and that of her son the second earl, 1582, in like manner on the south. The whole is of alabaster and marble most elaborately and beautifully worked, carved, and panelled, the inscriptions being on black marble panels at the feet of the three effigies. In the vault beneath are also buried Henry third earl of Southampton and his son James Wriothesley, 1624, and the fourth and last earl, Thomas, 1667.
In the north-east angle of the south aisle is an inlaid wood panel with the Wriothesley arms, with a pediment supported by caryatides, and below it the motto VNG PARTOUT. It was formerly in the Bugle Inn.
There are six bells, the first two of which were added and the rest recast in 1866. The fifth was a Salisbury bell, c. 1400, inscribed AVE MARIA PLENA; the fourth of 1628, inscribed IN GOD IS MY HOPE I. I.; the third by Francis Foster of Salisbury, 1675, and the tenor by Wells of Aldbourne, 1769. There is also a small bell uninscribed of some antiquity
The plate is a very fine silver-gilt set, consisting of two cups with cover patens, inscribed THE GIFT OF THO CORDEROY GENT AħO DOĨ 1673, with the arms of Corderoy—a cheveron between two molets and in base a lion, all with a border—the crest being a crowned heart (cæur de roi); in spite of the inscription, the date letter on the cups is that of 1675; two flagons of the same date and gift; two alms dishes of 1670 of the same gift; and a standing salver of 1679, given by William Orton.
The first book of the registers contains entries from 1589 to 1634, and is of paper; the second covers the years 1634–78, and the third 1678–1762. The fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth books contain the marriages from 1754 to 1812, and the sixth the baptisms and burials, 1762–1812. In these registers there are twelve entries of burials of soldiers between 27 November and 16 December, 1627, probably men wounded in the disastrous expedition to La Rochelle. In August, 1628, the duke of Buckingham's murder is very fully chronicled: 'The Lorde Duke of Buckinghame was slayne at Portesmouth the 23 day of August being Satterday, Generall of all ye fleete by sea and land, whose name was George Villers Ryght Honorable.'
The plan is irregular, the chancel not being on the same axis as the nave, and owing to modern alterations there is little guide to the earlier history of the building. The chancel and north transept seem to be early fourteenth-century work, their walls being unusually thin, nowhere more than 2 ft.
The south transept is a modern addition in poor Gothic style, of much larger area than the north transept, and contains nothing of note beyond the large white marble monument of Thomas Missing, 1733, with his arms, gules a cheveron between three molets argent and a chief or.
The chancel, 15 ft. 8 in. by 13 ft., has a modern two-light east window, on the north a repaired squareheaded window of two trefoiled lights, c. 1320, and on the south a single uncusped light. To the west of this a pointed arch of two orders opens to the south chapel, which has a two-light east window cinquefoiled, and a modern south doorway. To the north of the window is a plain corbel for an image. The chancel arch, which seems to be of fourteenth-century work, dies out at the springing, and on the same line at the west of the south chapel is a half arch with a moulded string at the springing, which looks like early thirteenth-century detail.
The north transept, 12 ft. 9 in. by 8 ft. 6 in., which opens to the nave by an arch like the chancel arch, has a three-light north window with net tracery, and a square-headed east window of two lights, both c. 1320–30. In the north wall is a narrow doorway, and west of it a blocked low side window with an internal rebate for a wooden frame. The doorway now opens to a modern vestry built against the north wall of the transept. In the west wall of the transept is a single trefoiled fourteenth-century light.
The nave, 51 ft. 3 in. by 19 ft., has three squareheaded north windows, each of two trefoiled lights, one south window of the same type, and a four-centred south doorway, all of fifteenth-century style, but mostly of modern masonry. There is a three-light west window with a circular window over it, both modern.
The roofs of the chancel, nave, and north transept are old, but without detail by which their approximate date may be deduced; all other woodwork in the church is modern, except the pulpit, which is of eighteenth-century date.
The church of ST. MARY, HOOK, built in 1871, is of stone in Early English style, and consists of chancel, nave of four bays, aisles, transepts, north and south porches, and a western turret containing one bell. The register dates from 1871.
The church of ST. PAUL, SARISBURY, built in 1836, and partly rebuilt and enlarged in 1888, is of brick and stone in Early English style, and consists of chancel, with organ chamber and vestry, nave, transepts, and western tower containing a clock and one bell. The register dates from 1837.
The font, near the south door, has an octagonal bowl on a short stem, and may be of fifteenth-century date. This church is now used only as a mortuary chapel, a new building of the same name having been erected in 1871 to serve as the parish church.
The first mention of the advowson of Titchfield appears to be in 1231, when the right of presentation was granted with the manor to the abbot and convent of Titchfield. (fn. 174) The abbey presented from 1302 to 1539, and from that time the descent of both the manor and advowson are identical till 1856, when the patronage passed to the dean and chapter of Winchester. (fn. 175)
There was a church at Crofton in 1086 which is probably identical with the chapel of St. Edmund mentioned in the fourteenth century in connexion with the grant of the manor to the abbot and convent of Titchfield. (fn. 176) As it was never assessed separately in any ecclesiastical valuation, and there is no evidence to show that it has ever been a separate ecclesiastical unit, it was probably a chapel of ease to Titchfield and was served by the same incumbent. The ecclesiastical parish of Crofton was formed from Titchfield in 1871.
The living of St. Mary's, Hook, is a vicarage in the gift of the bishop of Winchester, and that of St. Paul's Sarisbury, also a vicarage, is in the gift of the vicar of Titchfield. There is an iron church at Lee-on-theSolent, Congregational chapels at Sarisbury and Warsash, a Baptist chapel at Sarisbury, and a Wesleyan chapel at Lee-on-the-Solent.
The charities of Robert Godfrey, of Henry earl of Southampton, and Richard Godwin, are now dispensed under a scheme issued by the Charity Commissioners, dated 17 December, 1897, and 9 December, 1902, under the title of 'The Charities of the Earl of Southampton and Others.' Robert Godfrey's charity founded by deed 1597, consists of land, cottages, and stable, let at £28 a year. Richard Godwin's charity is a rent-charge of £4 issuing out of Pressmoore's estate at Glastonbury, Somerset. The trust estates of the earl of Southampton's charity consist of about twenty-seven acres of land, tenements, and gardengrounds, producing a gross income of £115 a year. By the schemes above referred to the annuity of £4 is directed to be applied in the advancement of the education of children in a public elementary school, by way of prizes, together with a further sum of £10 out of the general income, and subject thereto the residue of the yearly income for the benefit of poor persons resident in the civil parish, and in default in the ancient parish of Titchfield. In 1905 £24 was paid to pensioners, £5 in tools for apprentices, and subscriptions were made to provident clubs.
Mrs. Charlotte Hornby, by her will proved 1890, bequeathed a legacy represented by £1,865 5s. 8d. consols, the income from which, amounting to £46, is applied equally in subscriptions to clothing clubs and in the distribution of blankets at Christmas.
Seymour Robert Delmé in 1894 bequeathed £1,000 to the vicar and churchwardens of Titchfield church, which is invested in consols to the amount of £910 12s., the income from which, amounting to £22 15s., to be distributed among the poor. He also left £500 invested in consols to the amount of £455 5s. 8d., producing an income of £11 7s. for the repair of the church.
Seymour Robert Delmé, by his will proved in 1894, left £1,383 7s. 5d. India stock, producing an income of £41 10s., one-third of which is to be applied in the advancement of the children of Crofton, and two-thirds for the benefit of the poor. In 1867 4 acres and 22 poles of land were awarded to Crofton as a recreation ground, any profits from the pasturage, averaging £3 a year, to be applied for public uses.
In 1866 a recreation ground of 6 acres and 22 poles was awarded for the use of the inhabitants of Sarisbury, and by deed dated 1892 Mrs. L. Seymour gave a parish room, which was vested in 'The Official Trustee of Charity Lands,' by an order of the Charity Commissioners, dated 5 July, 1892.