A History of the County of Sussex: Volume 6 Part 2, Bramber Rape (North-Western Part) Including Horsham. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1986.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
EAST EASWRITH HUNDRED
BEFORE 1066 Easwrith was probably a single hundred; by 1086 there were two, of which the later West Easwrith lay in Arundel rape, the later East Easwrith in Bramber. (fn. 1) East Easwrith in 1248 was called a half-hundred and came by 6 jurors instead of 12; (fn. 2) it was still sometimes called a half-hundred until 1538 or later. (fn. 3) The hundreds took their name from a place, perhaps originally a thicket, (fn. 4) near the rape boundary in Sullington and Storrington. (fn. 5)
In 1086 East Easwrith hundred allegedly included Ashington, Thakeham, Muntham (in Findon and Itchingfield), Chiltington, and parts of Washington and Storrington. (fn. 6) In 1248 the half-hundred included the tithings of Thakeham, Dishenhurst (including Itchingfield), and Chiltington, (fn. 7) and in 1279 also Warminghurst. (fn. 8) The components in 1288 were listed as Apsley (in Thakeham and Shipley), Dishenhurst, 'Millington' (presumably Sullington, which in 1086 lay partly in West Easwrith and partly in Steyning hundred), Withyham (in Shipley), and Thakeham. Warminghurst, however, was variously alleged to be in Brightford hundred or in Gostrow hundred (Hastings rape), which belonged to the abbey of Fécamp (Seine Maritime), lords of Warminghurst. (fn. 9) By 1296 the composition of the hundred had been settled as Chiltington, Dishenhurst, Sullington, Thakeham, and Warminghurst. (fn. 10) It remained the same until the early 19th century, (fn. 11) although in 1610 Thakeham and Itchingfield were taxed with Singlecross hundred. (fn. 12) From 1831 (West) Chiltington was regarded as in Arundel rape, West Easwrith hundred, (fn. 13) and its history is reserved for treatment elsewhere.
The hundred belonged to John de Braose in 1229, (fn. 14) and thereafter apparently descended with Bramber rape. (fn. 15) In 1652 it was sold to a Col. Juxon, possibly John Juxon of Albourne Place. (fn. 16) The hundred had reverted by 1662 to Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk (d. 1677). (fn. 17) In 1669 Henry Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester, and others, perhaps acting as trustees, leased it to Henry, Lord Howard, later duke of Norfolk (d. 1684). As earl of Norwich he assigned the lease to Arthur Onslow in 1673. (fn. 18) Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk (d. 1732) made a new lease in 1686. (fn. 19) In the 1690s Charles Sackville, earl of Dorset, was assigned fee farms of the hundred. (fn. 20) In 1705 it was again owned by the duke of Norfolk, (fn. 21) in whose family it descended until 1849 or later. (fn. 22)
The abbot of Fécamp in 1229 claimed the amercements of his men in the hundred; (fn. 23) by 1279 the claim had been accepted for Warminghurst, (fn. 24) which had its own court leet by 1409. (fn. 25) By tradition the headborough of Warminghurst made a nil presentment at the hundred court in the 16th century, (fn. 26) and in 1816 Warminghurst was wrongly described as a separate hundred. (fn. 27)
Court rolls survive for 1538, 1598, and 1600, (fn. 28) drafts for 1705-6, (fn. 29) and court books for 1845-9. (fn. 30) An alderman of Easwrith was mentioned in 1262. (fn. 31) The court elected an alderman and two constables in 1598, (fn. 32) and there were two constables in the 18th and 19th centuries. (fn. 33)