The hundred of Finchdean: Introduction

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 hundred of Finchdean: Introduction', in A History of the County of Hampshire: Volume 3, (London, 1908) pp. 82-83. British History Online [accessed 22 May 2024].

. "The hundred of Finchdean: Introduction", in A History of the County of Hampshire: Volume 3, (London, 1908) 82-83. British History Online, accessed May 22, 2024,

. "The hundred of Finchdean: Introduction", A History of the County of Hampshire: Volume 3, (London, 1908). 82-83. British History Online. Web. 22 May 2024,



Idsworth Chapelry
Sheet Tithing

The above list represents the extent of the hundred of Finchdean at the time of the population returns of 1831. The parishes of Bramshott, Greatham, and Liss were added to the hundred before 1841, (fn. 1) and Waterloo, constituted a parish in 1858, is also now included in the hundred.

At the time of the Domesday Survey this hundred was called 'Ceptune' Hundred, and included the parishes of Blendworth, Buriton, Catherington, Chalton, Clanfield, and Petersfield. (fn. 2) The land comprising the hundred was assessed in the time of Edward the Confessor at 83 hides, and in the time of the Survey at about half that amount. The hundred had assumed its modern name before the end of the twelfth century, (fn. 3) but seems sometimes to have been called 'Wlputta,' as in the Testa de Nevill, where Chalton, Idsworth, and Mapledurham are included in the hundred of that name. (fn. 4) The extent of the hundred has altered but little since the time of the Survey. Some of the parishes, however, of which it was composed had not exactly the same boundaries as they have at the present day. Thus the western part of the parish of Catherington was included in the hundred of Portsdown until the reign of Edward II, and in the reign of Edward I the manor of Hinton Daubnay is mentioned as being in the same hundred, (fn. 5) while in 1316 it was included in Finchdean. (fn. 6) Wellsworth, which is situated in Idsworth chapelry, was also included in Portsdown Hundred in the reign of Edward I, when the abbot of Titchfield was forced to allow his villeins of Wellsworth to do suit at the hundred of the king at Portsdown, (fn. 7) and it was not until the beginning of the seventeenth century that it was transferred to Finchdean. (fn. 8) In 1431 the fourth part of a knight's fee in 'Oldestoke' was included in Finchdean, (fn. 9) but this place does not appear under the hundred in subsequent subsidy rolls.


The hundred originally belonged to the crown, (fn. 10) and was granted either in the twelfth or thirteenth century to William de Albini, earl of Arundel. (fn. 11) It was appendant to the earldom of Arundel for a considerable time, (fn. 12) finally passing to Henry V on the death of Thomas, earl of Arundel, in 1415. (fn. 13) The hundred then remained with the crown for nearly two hundred years, Elizabeth at length in 1600 granting it by letters patent to Henry Best and Robert Holland, who conveyed it the next day to Robert Paddon and his heirs. (fn. 14) In 1604 Robert sold it for £150 to Nicholas Hyde, lord of the manor of Hinton Daubnay, (fn. 15) since which date it has followed the descent of that manor (q.v.). (fn. 16) As late as 1651 a hundred court with view of frankpledge was held twice a year for the hundred at Hocktide and Martinmas. (fn. 17)


  • 1. Cf. the Population Returns of 1831 and 1841.
  • 2. V.C.H. Hants, i, 451 and 478. The parishes are not all mentioned by name, the only entries under 'Ceptune' Hundred being 'Malpedresham,' 'Ceptune,' and 'Seneorde,' but, as is shown under the parishes, 'Malpedresham' included the modern parishes of Buriton, Petersfield and Sheet, and 'Ceptune' those of Blendworth, Catherington, Chalton, Clanfield and Id:worth, while 'Seneorde' represents 'Sunwood' Farm in the parish of Buri on.
  • 3. Pipe R. (P pe R. S. c.), 23 Hen. II, xxvi, 171.
  • 4. Testa de Nevill (Rec. Com.), 236b.
  • 5. Hundred R. (Rec. Com.), ii, 223.
  • 6. Feud. Aids, ii, 318.
  • 7. Plac. de Quo Warr. (Rec. Com.), Edw. I, 765.
  • 8. Vide Portsdown Hundred.
  • 9. Feud. Aids, ii, 362.
  • 10. Hundred R. (Rec. Com.), ii, 223; Plac. de Quo Warr. (Rec. Com.), 772.
  • 11. The hundred roll is very illegible, the only words decipherable being 'Dicunt quod hundredum de F . . . . . . regis. Et ipse dominus rex dedit dictum hundredum Wilhelmo de …' Subsequent documents make it clear that it was William de Albini to whom the hundred was granted. There were three of that name, however—one who died temp. Hen. II, the second who died circ. 6 Hen. III, and the third who died 18 Hen. III—and it is not clear to which of the three it was granted.
  • 12. Inq. p.m. 21 Ric. II, Nos. 8a and 8b; Assize R. Mich. 8 Edw. I. (The hundred is the hundred of John Fitz-Alan de Arundel by annual payment of 20s. to the king, and is worth 40s. per annum. Isabel de Mortimer holds the hundred nomine dotis, because John is under age and in the king's ward.)
  • 13. Vide Close, 2 Jas. I, pt. 15.
  • 14. Ibid.
  • 15. Add. MS. 33278, fol. 146; Close, 2 Jas. I, pt. 15.
  • 16. In a survey of 1651 (Parl. Surv. Hants, 1650–2, No. 11) the hundred is described as late parcel of the possessions of Charles Stuart, late king of England, but a mistake seems to have been made by the commissioners, for Sir Nicholas Hyde was seised of it at his death in 1633, and his descendant Arthur Hyde dealt with it by recovery in 1690 (Recov. R. East. 2 Will. and Mary, rot. 5).
  • 17. Parl. Surv. Hants, 1650–2, No. 11.