Parishes: Leigh

Pages 208-213

A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 3. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1911.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.


In this section


Leghe (xii cent.); Legh and Leygh (xiv. cent.); The Lea, 1499; (fn. 1) Lye and Lee (xvi cent.).

Leigh is a small village, 3 miles south-east of Reigate. The parish, which is of irregular form, is bounded on the north by Reigate, on the east by outlying portions of Buckland and Charlwood and by Horley, on the south by Horley and Newdigate, on the west by Capel, and on the north-west by Betchworth. It measures about 3 miles west and east, by 2 miles north and south, but a tongue runs down south into Newdigate for nearly a mile further. It contains 3,412 acres.

The soil is Wealden Clay, with the exception of some sand and alluvium on the banks of the Mole and its tributaries, which traverse the parish. The Mole, running generally from east to west, bounds the parish on the north-east. Brooks flow into it from Charlwood on the south and the Holmwood Common on the west.

The village consists only of a small cluster of houses about the green near the church; there are cottages at Dawes Green to the west, and scattered farms and houses. Shellwood Mill stands on high ground, which was once Shellwood Common, but is now inclosed, and is that somewhat rare survival in these times, a working windmill.

The extensive commons formerly in Leigh have been inclosed, except Westwood Common and some roadside waste.

The roads of the parish are now as good and hard as any others, though liable to interruption in places by actual flood in a wet season. Formerly they were almost a byword, even in the Weald, for the impassable character of this deep clay after the rain of any autumn or winter.

Leigh is not named in Domesday, but was no doubt partly inhabited before that date. Shellwood Manor, which includes the greater part of it, was part of Ewell. Banstead Manor included Dunshot tithing in Leigh, Stumblehole, part of the Leigh Place estate, and other farms. The manors of East Betchworth and Reigate also extend into Leigh, both mentioned in the Domesday Survey; and Brockham and Charlwood, which were not manors in 1086, are partly in the parish.

Elizabethan coins have been found on the site of Shellwood Manor House, and the adjacent farm called Shellwood Manor is a good old gabled house of perhaps 17th-century origin.

At Shellwood Common in Leigh the last stand of the abortive Royalist insurrection of 1 August 1659 was made, but was overcome without fighting. The original rendezvous of the Royalists at Redhill had been occupied by troops beforehand, but a few men had apparently ridden on here, only to scatter when the soldiers appeared. (fn. 2)

Leigh was one of the parishes where the iron industry existed. It was among those excepted from the operation of the Act 1 Eliz. cap. 15 against conversion of timber of a certain size into charcoal for the purposes of iron smelting. During the 16th century ironworks existed at Leigh on lands 8 acres in extent, called Burgett and Grove Lands, a lease of which had been obtained in 1551 by George and Christopher Darell, who were engaged in developing the iron industry in this part of Surrey. (fn. 3) Hammer Bridge in Leigh, on a branch of the Mole, above the village, commemorates perhaps a hammer of Mr. Darrell's works at Ewood in Newdigate, a little higher up the same stream. (fn. 4) In 1635 it was presented at the court baron that there had formerly been great woods, now cut down, of oak, beech, and other trees, in Shellwood, Westwood, Leigh Green, Dawes Green, and other places, where the tenants used to feed swine and had since pastured their cattle. (fn. 5) This felling of the woods must no doubt be associated with the ironworks, so that Darrell's preservation of his woods, referred to in the statute of 23 Elizabeth, cap. 5, had not been successfully imitated.

The extensive wastes of Shellwood Manor were inclosed under an award of 12 January 1854. (fn. 6) There is no evidence of common fields.

There are some good houses in the parish. Mynthurst is the property of Mr. Henry Bell, J.P.; Denshott (properly Dunshott), of Mr. Cecil Brodrick; Burys Court of Mrs. Charrington; Nalderswood of Mr. A. G. Fraser.

The present school (National) was founded in 1845. On 20 October 1849 the Duke of Norfolk conveyed a site on the waste of Shellwood Manor to the National Society for the schoolhouse. It has been enlarged in 1872 and 1885.


The earliest records of SHELLWOOD show it to have been a member of the manor of Ewell; it is not mentioned in the Domesday Survey, but was probably included in Ewell, which was ancient demesne of the Crown. In 1156 Henry II granted the manor of Ewell with its members of Kingswood and Shellwood to the Prior and convent of Merton, Surrey. (fn. 7) In 1324 John le Dene, one of the prior's tenants at Shellwood, (fn. 8) received licence to build a chapel in the 'manor of Leigh.' (fn. 9) Shellwood was held by the prior until the surrender of the monastery in 1538. (fn. 10) In 1539 the king made a grant to Sir Thomas Nevile, for £400, of the manor of Shellwood with land called Deneland, Manwood, and Fynchland, and tenements called Ryvesland and Hokesferm in Leigh, to hold for an annual rent of £3 7s. 7¾d., with reversion to Sir Robert Southwell and Margaret his wife, daughter and heir of Sir Thomas Nevile, and Margaret's issue: the grantee was charged with a life annuity of 40s. granted by the late priory to James Skinner. (fn. 11) In 1547 Sir Robert Southwell and Margaret received licence to alienate to Henry Lechford, (fn. 12) in whose family the manor remained until 1634, (fn. 13) when Sir Richard Lechford, great-grandson of Henry, conveyed to Sir Garret Kempe and John Garnett. (fn. 14) They in the same year conveyed to Penning Alston and Spencer Vincent, trustees of Dr. Edward Alston, the estate being then charged with an annuity of £70 to Mary, Lady Blount. (fn. 15) It was sequestered for her delinquency in 1644; in 1651 the trustees complained that they had paid £40 per annum to the State ever since, and that though Lady Blount's term had expired, yet the sequestration of two-thirds was continued on a false pretext of the recusancy of Edward Cotton, the tenant. (fn. 16) The latter seems, however, to have been a recusant, and petitioned to contract for his estate in January 1654. (fn. 17) Later in the same year he, with the trustees of Edward Alston, conveyed Shellwood to George Browne of Spelmonden, Kent, (fn. 18) whose sons, Ambrose and John, both held after him. (fn. 19)

Merton Priory. Or fretty azure with eagles argent at the crossings of the fret.

Both died childless; the survivor, John, who died in 1736, devised the property to Thomas Jordan, son of his sister Philippa. (fn. 20) Jordan also died without issue in 1750, his sisters Elizabeth Beaumont and Philippa Sharp were his co-heirs. (fn. 21) Shellwood became the property of the Beaumonts, to whom John Sharp and Philippa quitclaimed their right in 1753. (fn. 22) The manor descended to the son and grandson of Elizabeth Beaumont, (fn. 23) and was sold in 1806 to the Duke of Norfolk. (fn. 24) The present duke is now lord of the manor.

During the 13th and early 14th centuries the customs and services due from the men of Shellwood to the Prior of Merton seem to have been a constant subject of dispute. In 1223 Gilbert de Covelinden and others were summoned to answer to the prior for their refusal to do the services which he exacted of them for the tenements which they held of him, as he said, in villeinage. The men, however, denied all villeinage (defendunt omne villenagium), and said they held freely. The prior maintained that the manor of Ewell, of which the lands of Fifhide and Shellwood were members, was held in villeinage, and demanded judgement as to whether the members of a manor could be freer than the chief holding. The men asked that an inquisition might be taken to discover what services and customs their ancestors had performed when first the lands came to the prior. (fn. 25) An account of the inquiry, enrolled on a Curia Regis Roll for 1226, gives an interesting description of these services. (fn. 26) The prior claimed that besides paying the ordinary rent of 5s. per virgate for their lands, every tenant should come in harvest time, with his entire household, exclusive of his wife and his shepherd, to the 'bedripe' (the wheat harvest) of the lord, and should then be allowed two meals, the first with ale, the second without, that each man should assist in making a house called the 'Sumerhus,' or pay 6d. towards the same, at the choice of the prior, that they should cut down brushwood in the wood of Shellwood and bring it to Tadworth, and should inclose a rood of land around the court of Ewell, and that they should send a man of their household to till the fields of Ewell both in winter and in Lent, the prior finding them food. They also owed him pannage at the rate of one hog in every ten, or, if they had less than ten, 1d. for every hog. No son or daughter of a tenant might marry without the prior's licence; each man also owed Peter's pence—1d. so long as his wife was alive, ½d. after her death. Moreover the prior claimed that every man should come to the court of Ewell to make the court when summoned by the prior's bailiff. They were not allowed to sell ox or horse without the prior's leave, and the best ox in each man's possession, or horse if he had any, could be taken as a heriot by the prior at death of a tenant. Lastly, they were not to cut down oaks in Shellwood without his permission.

The men of Shellwood allowed that they owed for the farm of the land 5s. per virgate, or 100s. for 5 hides. They said that when the prior had need of their aid for the requirements of the church they gave it freely, not by reason of their villeinage, but rather from courtesy. They allowed the claims for pannage and Peter's pence, but said that they came to the court of Ewell as free men, at the election of the prior's bailiff, to act as jurors.

The jurors for the inquest denied the prior's claim for work from his tenants in harvest time, and they stated that the brushwood cut down by the men should be taken by them over the hill called Bridelcumbe. The other services were allowed to the prior. The men of Shellwood were said to owe tallage whenever the men of Ewell did so, and it was not voluntary, but compulsory; they were also required to plough the lands of Ewell if the prior wished it, bringing their own horses and ploughs.

In 1311 John de Dene, a tenant of the prior in Shellwood, was remitted certain of these services in consideration of an increase on his annual assize rent of 8d., payable at four terms of the year. (fn. 27)

In 1316 the men of Shellwood accused the prior of exacting from them other services than those which they were required to perform. The prior, however, said that he exacted no more than those allowed to his predecessor in the suit of 1223, and judgement was given in his favour. (fn. 28)

It may be that the memory of an ancient dispute caused the careful insertion in the conveyance from Southwell to Lechford in 1547 of the words 'with the bondmen and their families.' The liberation of the tenants from the essential villein service of attendance at the bedrip probably means that in 1223 it was recognized that they were not technically villani, had no share in the common fields, but were yet servile tenants.

Free warren in all their lands of Merton, Ewell, Kingswood and Shellwood was granted to the prior and convent in 1252. (fn. 29) In a plea of 'quo warranto' in 1279 the prior claimed assize of bread and ale and gallows on the ground that Henry II had granted them Shellwood with soc, sac, &c., and quittance of shires and hundreds, and that these liberties had been confirmed by Richard I. (fn. 30)

The capital messuage of Shellwood was separated from the manor itself during the 18th century. According to Manning, Ambrose Browne obtained an Act of Parliament in 1712 enabling him to sell a manor in Kent and the capital messuage of Shellwood, which was therefore vested in Jemmett Raymond, second husband of Elizabeth, widow of George Browne. (fn. 31) From Raymond it passed, in 1755, to John Winter, (fn. 32) who conveyed it in 1781 to Richard Simpson. (fn. 33) It passed in 1796 to his nephew Cornelius Cayley, and was sold three years later to the Duke of Norfolk, (fn. 34) and thus became reunited to the manor. It is not now standing (see above), but the farm next to it is of about 17th-century date, and perhaps had superseded the original manor-house before the separation from the manor.

The messuage and farm of LEIGH PLACE was the residence of the Ardernes in the 15th century. (fn. 35)

John Arderne, who was high sheriff of Surrey in 1432, was of Leigh Place. By his will, which was proved in 1449, he directed that if he died at or near Leigh he should be buried in the church there. His son John inherited the estate, and was in turn succeeded by his son Richard, (fn. 36) who died in 1499 seised of 3 messuages, 255 acres of land, &c., in Leigh. Richard Arderne by his will bequeathed all his lands to his wife Joan, requiring her 'to fynd an honest pryst to pray for me & all my friends & all cristyn sowlys deuryng her lyf'; after her death his step-brother John Holgrave was to find the priest, who was to receive an annual sum of £6 13s. 4d. (fn. 37) There is apparently no record of any such chantry in Leigh Church. Leigh Place soon after became the property of the Dudleys. (fn. 38) By an Act of 1512, reversing the attainder of Edward Dudley, John Dudley his son, subsequently Duke of Northumberland, was restored to his father's lands. (fn. 39) He sold the estate of Leigh Place to Edward Shelley of Findon in Sussex in 1530. (fn. 40) The deed recites that in 1527 Sir John Dudley had conveyed the manor of Findon, which had belonged to his father, to Edward Shelley, that Shelley had agreed to re-sell it to Dudley, in consideration of which sale Dudley agreed to sell to Shelley 'a messuage called Lye Place (fn. 41) with appurtenances in the parish of Lye, Surrey.' In an account made in 1534, of defaults of bridges in Surrey, a reference occurs to 'the bridge before Mr. Shellie's place, Lye.' (fn. 42) Elizabeth, daughter of Sir William Shelley and niece of Edward Shelley, married Sir Roger Copley of Gatton, (fn. 43) and in 1540 Edward Shelley and Anne Cobbe (possibly his daughter-in-law) made a settlement of Leigh Place on them. (fn. 44) The property is described as a messuage, 200 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow, 100 of pasture, 20 of wood in Leigh, and 40 acres of pasture in Betchworth, the said messuage and lands being known as that mansion, messuage or farm with dovecot called 'Le Ley,' held of the manor of Banstead by service of 11s. Elizabeth Copley survived her husband, and died in 1559, Sir Thomas Copley being her son and heir. (fn. 45) He was M.P. for Gatton in 1554, 1557–8, and 1562–3. Under Mary he was a supporter of the rights of succession of Elizabeth, (fn. 46) who was his third cousin twice removed through the marriage of Sir Geoffrey Boleyn with his great-great-aunt Anne, daughter of Lord Hastings. But he had scruples about subscribing to the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, (fn. 47) and left England in 1569 and spent the rest of his life abroad, dying in Flanders in 1584. (fn. 48) William Copley, eldest surviving son of Thomas, inherited the estate. (fn. 49) It was settled on his son William on the marriage of the latter with Anne Denton in 1615. (fn. 50) In 1620, however, William Copley the father, having married as his second wife Margaret Fromond, appears to have made a second settlement of the estate, this time on himself and his wife Margaret and the survivor of either of them for life, with reversion to his son by his first wife. (fn. 51) The son, who had predeceased him, had left two daughters and co-heirs—Mary, who married John Weston, and Anne, wife of Sir Nathaniel Minshull. (fn. 52) William Copley the father died in 1643, and his widow Margaret apparently entered on Leigh Place. In 1649, Mary Weston, to whom on the partition of estates Leigh Place had been allotted, conveyed the reversion, expectant on the demise of Margaret Copley, widow, to John Woodman. (fn. 53) The latter in 1651 conveyed to Thomas Jordan in trust for Robert Bristowe, and at the end of the same year Margaret Copley agreed to sell to the latter her life interest in the estate. (fn. 54) From Susanna Moore, daughter and heiress of Robert Bristowe, Leigh Place passed in 1706 to Edward Budgen, who by will of 1716 devised to his grand-nephews in turn. Thomas, the youngest, married Penelope Smith, and in 1806 his grandson, Thomas Smith-Budgen, conveyed the estate to Richard Caffyn Dendy, (fn. 55) in whose family it remains, Sir John Watney, the present owner, having married Elizabeth, a daughter and co-heir of Stephen Dendy. (fn. 56)

Arderne. Argent a fesse checky or and azure.

Leigh Place is the remains of a 15th-century house surrounded by a moat. Part of the house was pulled down about 1810, and the interior as restored and modernized is not of any great interest; there is, however, some fine woodwork. In a room on the ground floor is a large fireplace of 18th-century design, and on the first floor a large room now divided into three bedrooms has a four-centred arched ceiling, and over it a bell turret. It used to be approached by a drawbridge, which is now superseded by a permanent way. Old maps show the house to have been foursquare with a central courtyard, and the view in Manning and Bray shows the entrance front as it existed about 1806, with the drawbridge over the moat. (fn. 57) The Copleys being Catholic recusants accounts for a cupboard near the chimney in the hall which was called the Priest's Hole. Robert Southwell the Jesuit and poet was son of Bridget, sister of Sir Thomas Copley of Leigh and Gatton, and may have been here.


—In 1325 R. de Stumblehole held a tenement at Stumblehole of Banstead Manor. (fn. 58) A messuage and lands at Stumblehole were held by the de Bures family as parcel of lands at Burgh in Banstead in the 14th century. (fn. 59) The property seems to have afterwards belonged to the Leigh Place estate, as Bray, writing in the early 19th century, states that it had then been sold as a farm to William Brown by John Smith-Budgen of Leigh Place. (fn. 60)


The church of ST. BARTHOLOMEW has a chancel 25 ft. 6 in. by 18 ft. 2 in., a south vestry, a nave 54 ft. 3 in. (of which 10 ft. at the west end is covered by the tower and divided from the nave by an arch) by 21 ft., and south and west porches.

The building is of 15th-century origin, but has been much modernized. The nave was formerly about three-quarters of the present length, and had a west tower with a stone base and upper part of wood. The tower had a west doorway, and over it a three-light traceried window, and its west wall was flush with that of the nave. At a later date the wooden part was replaced by one of stone. When the church was lengthened in 1890 the tower was demolished and replaced by the present wooden erection above the nave roof: the arch opening to the nave appears to have been re-used, but no other part of the work is old.

The east window of the chancel is a modern one in 15th-century style, of three lights under a traceried head. The two north windows are both partly restored 15th-century work: the first is of two cinquefoiled lights under a traceried pointed head with a label, the external jambs and arch having a wide casement moulding, while the second window is of two trefoiled lights under a square head. The south-east window is quite modern and similar in design to that opposite. In this wall, near the chancel arch, is the doorway to the modern vestry. The chancel arch has chamfered jambs with moulded bases and capitals, and the arch is two-centred and of two chamfered orders. The bases and some other stones are modern, the rest may be original.

The two easternmost of the north windows of the nave are both old, of three cinquefoiled lights under pointed segmental heads, the third window is a new one of similar character but of two lights. The south-east window is an old one of three lights like that opposite, and below it is a small cinquefoiled and square-headed piscina. The south doorway is original, and has two moulded orders continuing round the two-centred arch and jambs. The porch is comparatively modern. Just west of it is the junction of the old walling with the new, although the old nave was some 10 ft. or 12 ft. longer than this. The south-west window is a new two-light one, similar to that opposite.

The arch dividing off the western portion of the nave has old stones re-used, and is of like detail to the chancel arch, except that the bases have a plain hollow chamfer. The space to the west of it has a three-light square-headed south window and a west doorway; on the north side is a stair to the gallery, which contains the organ; this gallery has a modern panelled traceried front. Over it the bell-turret rises; it has battering sides covered with oak shingles, and the bell-chamber is lighted on each side by two-light windows. Over it is an octagonal spire also covered with shingles, the whole being of modern construction.

Both the roofs are modern, and are covered with Horsham stone slabs. All the furniture is modern. The font has an octagonal bowl of grey marble with shallow trefoiled panels in 13th-century style, carried on a central stone stem and a cluster of shafts.

There are three monumental brasses in the chancel; the slab on the north side of the altar has the figures of John Arderne and Elizabeth his wife; he wears a long cloak with a high collar and loose sleeves gathered in close at the wrists, and his tunic underneath is held by a waistbelt enriched with rosettes. She wears a mantle fastened across the breast by a cord which descends below her waist and finishes with tasselled ends, and a close-fitting gown with a high belt. A shield above the man is charged with a fesse checky between three crescents, for Arderne, that above the woman is missing, as is also the main inscription. Below are the mutilated figures of three sons and the inscription: 'Thomas Joh[anne]s et Henricus, filii Johis Arderne Armig'i et Elizabeth ux'is sue,' and the figures of three daughters inscribed 'Anna, Birgitta, et Susanna filiae Joh[annis]s Arderne et Elizabeth ux'is sue.'

Between the figures is a shield with the Arderne arms impaling a quarterly coat, of which the first and fourth are blank and the second and third paly of six.

The slab south of the altar has lost the brass figures of a man and woman, but the inscription below remains intact and reads: 'Orate pro Animabus Ricardi Ardern Gentilman et Johanne uxoris ejus qui quidem Ricardus obiit xxii die Mensis Novembris Anno D[omini] Mill[essim]o cccco l xxxxixo Quorū Animabus Propiciet' deus Amen.' From the woman's mouth issues a scroll inscribed 'Fili redemptor mũdi deus miserere nobis,' and from the man's, 'Ut videntes Ihūm semper Colletemur.' Above is a small representation of the Trinity between two shields, the first Arderne as before, and the second with the same impaling a cheveron between three harts tripping. These two shields also occur in reverse order at the bottom.

The third brass is a small one west of the communion rail, and is to Susanna the daughter of John Arderne, and shows her whole-length figure. It is undated, but she is doubtless the same lady as the third daughter on the John Arderne slab; a scroll above her head is inscribed 'Mercy Jhū et graunt m'cy.'

The stained glass in the windows is modern, but in the vestry are preserved a few fragments of old glass, chiefly borders of three cinquefoiled heads, with red roses and jessant de lys repeated continuously.

There are five bells, all cast by Mears & Stainbank in 1889; the second was formerly by Lester & Pack, 1756; the third by William Eldridge, 1687; and the fourth by Bryan Eldridge, 1638.

The communion plate includes a cup of 1606 with an egg-and-tassel ornament around the foot; below the top edge is pricked the inscription 'TEH PARICH OF LEIGH + GC + WN.' There are also a standing paten of 1773, a flagon of 1899, both of silver, a small modern plate of base metal, a large plated flagon (now used to serve the font), a pewter plate, and a pewter bowl.

The first book of the registers has paper leaves and begins in 1579. The entries are much mixed up, but the baptisms appear to run from 1579 to 1703, the marriages from 1584 to 1643, and 1648 to 1653, and burials from 1584 to 1670 and 1674 to 1675. There are also some churchwardens' accounts dating from 1586 in the same volume. The second book contains baptisms from 1702 to 1800, marriages 1704 to 1754, and burials 1704 to 1800. The third book has the marriages from 1754 to 1812, and the fourth baptisms and burials from 1801 to 1812.


The advowson of the church was granted to the priory of St. Mary Overy, Southwark, by charter of Hamelin de Warenne in 1202; (fn. 61) it is not evident when it ceased to belong to this priory, but the church was in the hands of the Prior and convent of Newark next Guildford by 1262, (fn. 62) and so remained until the Dissolution. (fn. 63) The cure of the parish was habitually served by one of the canons, the successive priors thus 'saving to themselves the stipend of a curate.' (fn. 64) Richard Arderne of Leigh Place, who died in 1499, expressed a desire in his will to be buried before the image of St. Katherine in the parish church of Leigh. (fn. 65) John Grave, elected prior in 1534, demised the rectory for ninety-nine years to Edward Shelley of Leigh Place, who afterwards granted his term of years to Edmund Saunders. (fn. 66) By the terms of the lease, according to Manning, the tenant of the rectory was to find a priest, provide wine and wax, to repair the parsonage and the chancel, and to find food for men and horses when the prior's servants came to collect rent. (fn. 67)

At the Dissolution, when the property came to the Crown, there seems to have been some uncertainty regarding the benefice of Leigh, as the advowson of the 'vicarage' was granted apart from the rectory to Sir Thomas Nevile, with remainder to his daughter Margaret, wife of Sir Robert Southwell; (fn. 68) the latter conveyed it to Henry Lechford, (fn. 69) from whom it passed to Richard his son. (fn. 70) Henry son of Richard in 1599–1600, during his father's lifetime, joined with Robert Casey in purchasing the rectory of Leigh 'with the mansion there,' &c., from the Crown for themselves and their heirs. (fn. 71) Casley seems to have quitclaimed his right to Lechford. The latter predeceased his father Sir Richard, who, already possessed of the advowson, (fn. 72) held the rectory also after his son's death, (fn. 73) probably during the minority of his grandson Richard. Henceforth the rectory and advowson were presumably held together, the benefice reverting to its original curacy, for which the lay rectors were responsible. (fn. 74) Sir Richard Lechford conveyed in 1610 to Richard Dallender, (fn. 75) who in 1627 sold to Sir Ralph Freeman 'the rectory and parsonage impropriate of Leigh with the capital messuage called the parsonage house.' (fn. 76) After this time the property frequently changed hands, passing from Freeman to George Smith in 1630, (fn. 77) and from the latter to Edward Bathurst in 1638. (fn. 78)

The Parliamentary Surveys of Church Lands made during the Commonwealth record in 1658 that 'the parish of Leigh . . . is an impropriation. That Mr. Anthony Bathurst of Dogmershfield in the county of Southampton is Impropriator thereof. That Tithes and Gleabe Land thereof are worth threescore pounds by the yeare. That John Bonwicke Clerke is Curat there to whome the said Mr. Anthony Bathurst giveth of his free will ffive pounds everie quarter of the year.' (fn. 79)

In 1691 members of the Bathurst family conveyed to Mary Tainturier, widow, and Daniel Tainturier, (fn. 80) and from the latter the rectory passed to Thomas Scawen in 1711–12. (fn. 81) James Scawen held it in 1779, (fn. 82) and conveyed it in that year to Cartwright, (fn. 83) from whom it passed in 1790 to the Duke of Norfolk. (fn. 84) It passed from trustees of the duke in 1819 to the Rev. Joseph Fell. (fn. 85) Fell conveyed to Joseph Hodgson in 1823, and the latter, in the same year, to R. C. Dendy, of Leigh Place, (fn. 86) in whose family the patronage remained for many years. After the death of Stephen Dendy it passed to his third daughter and co-heir, Elizabeth wife of John Watney. (fn. 87) She died in 1896; her husband, who was knighted in 1900, still holds the advowson. (fn. 88) The living was created a vicarage in 1869. The benefice, as has been said, had previously been a perpetual curacy, the impropriator of the rectory holding both great and small tithes. (fn. 89)


Smith's Charity is distributed as in other Surrey parishes. In 1786 three houses, with orchards, from one benefaction, and one house, with no orchard, from another, were held for the poor; but the donors were unknown. Two houses on the road from Leigh to Charlwood were called the Poor's Houses in living recollection, but they have been long in private hands, and were probably sold after 1834. (fn. 90)

Earl's Charity, date unknown, was £1 12s. charged on land for the poor. This is not known to exist at present.

In 1637 the Rev. Thomas Bristowe, by will, left a schoolhouse with 5 acres of land for the education of four poor children. This is lost apparently.

S. Dendy, by will, proved 1861, left stock producing £11 0s. 3d. yearly for the school.


  • 1. Will of Richard Arderne, P.C.C. 5 Moone.
  • 2. V.C.H. Surr. i, 423.
  • 3. Surr. Arch. Coll. xvii, 30–1; V.C.H. Surr. ii, 263–4.
  • 4. Ibid. 269.
  • 5. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 180.
  • 6. Blue Bk. Inc. Awards.
  • 7. V.C.H. Surr. ii, 95; Cart. Antiq. U, 6; Plac. de Quo War. (Rec. Com.), 739.
  • 8. Vide infra.
  • 9. Winton Dioc. R. Stratford, 8b.
  • 10. Maitland, Bracton's Note Bk. no. 1661; Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 325; Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), ii, 48. See note 7.
  • 11. L. and P. Hen. VIII, xiv (2), g. 651 (50).
  • 12. Pat. 1 Edw. VI, pt. viii, m. 15; Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 1 Edw. VI.
  • 13. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cxlv, 13; Feet of F. Surr. Hil. 45 Eliz.; Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccxxv, 195; Feet of F. Surr. Hil. 20 Jas. I.
  • 14. Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 10 Chas. I.
  • 15. Cal. of Com. for Compounding, 2735.
  • 16. Ibid.
  • 17. Ibid. 3179.
  • 18. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 1654; Berry, Surr. Gen. 81.
  • 19. Ibid.; Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 1 Jas. II; Recov. R. Mich. 1 Jas. II, rot. 171.
  • 20. Berry, Surr. Gen. 81; P.C.C. 124 Derby.
  • 21. Berry, loc. cit.
  • 22. Feet. of F. Surr. Mich. 27 Geo. II.
  • 23. P.C.C. 400 Harris; Recov. R. East. 12 Geo. III, rot. 260.
  • 24. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii.
  • 25. Maitland, Bracton's Note Bk. no. 1661.
  • 26. Ibid. note; Cur. Reg. R. 94, Hil. 10 Hen. III, m. 8.
  • 27. Cott. MS. Cleop. C vii, fol. 158.
  • 28. Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 325.
  • 29. Cal. of Chart. 1226–57, p. 391.
  • 30. Plac. de Quo War. (Rec. Com.), 739, 748.
  • 31. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 180; Berry, Surr. Gen.; Stat. of the Realm, x, 1005.
  • 32. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 180.
  • 33. Feet of F. Surr. East. 21 Geo. III.
  • 34. See n. 32.
  • 35. Surr. Arch. Coll. xi, 141 et seq.; Cal. Pat. 1429–36, p. 380. It has been stated that the family of de Braose, or Brewes, held Leigh Place in the 13th and 14th centuries (Brayley, Hist. of Surr. iv, 282). There does not seem to be much documentary evidence in proof of this assertion. However, John son of John de Braose died in 1358 seised of a tenement in Leigh called Ernesheued, consisting of — and a garden worth 12d. and 40 acres worth 20s. (Chan. Inq. p.m. 31 Edw. III [1st nos.], no. 49), and as the Braoses were succeeded by the Ardernes in other places, this holding may be the Leigh Place estate. Moreover, the arms of the Cookseys, who were descended from the Braoses, used to be in the parish church, and the Cookseys and the Ardernes were both Warwickshire families.
  • 36. Chan. Inq. p.m. 15 Hen. VII, no. 101; P.C.C. 5 Moone; Surr. Arch. Coll. xi, 141.
  • 37. P.C.C. 5 Moone.
  • 38. For a possible connexion between Ardernes and Dudleys, see Surr. Arch. Coll. xi, 149.
  • 39. Stat. of the Realm, iii, 42.
  • 40. Surr. Arch. Coll. xi, 150 (quoting from deed in possession of owners of the estate).
  • 41. Also Flanchford in Reigate, and Hartswood in Buckland.
  • 42. L. and P. Hen. VIII, vii, 42.
  • 43. Visit. Surr. (Harl. Soc. xliii), 121; Berry, Surr. Gen. 85; Surr. Arch. Coll. xi.
  • 44. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccx, 85.
  • 45. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cxxvi, 145; P.C.C. 5 Mellershe.
  • 46. Com. Journ. i, 50.
  • 47. Loseley MSS. ix, 19, 20. Letters dated 17 and 23 Nov. 1569.
  • 48. Dict. Nat. Biog.
  • 49. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccccv, 159.
  • 50. Ibid.
  • 51. Ibid. The Surr. Arch. Coll. states that the deed of 1620 settled the estate not only on William Copley, senior, and Margaret for life, but on their issue, remainder being to William Copley, junior, the issue by the father's first marriage. This account also states that, after the death of the latter, the first settlement was disputed, and that of 1620 was finally allowed. The inquisition on the son and the subsequent history do not, however, show that the children by the father's second marriage ever had any right to the estate.
  • 52. Ibid.; Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccccv, 159. Minshull was apparently Anne's second husband. See Gatton Manor.
  • 53. Surr. Arch. Coll. xi, 177–8 (deed in possession of owners of estate).
  • 54. Ibid. 179.
  • 55. Ibid. 183.
  • 56. Burke, Landed Gentry.
  • 57. a See Surr. Arch. Coll. xi, 141–84.
  • 58. Add. Chart. 16532.
  • 59. Chan. Inq. p.m. 6 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 54; 19 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 54.
  • 60. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 184.
  • 61. V.C.H. Surr. ii, 10; Pat. 3 Edw. IV, pt. iii, m. 21
  • 62. V.C.H. Surr. ii, 103.
  • 63. Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), ii, 33; Dugdale, Mon. vi, 383–4.
  • 64. Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), bdle. 154, no. 34.
  • 65. P.C.C. 5 Moone. His tomb is on the south side of the chancel.
  • 66. See n. 63.
  • 67. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 184.
  • 68. Pat. 30 Hen. VIII, pt. vii, m. 7; Pat. 42 Eliz. pt. xv, m. 34.
  • 69. Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), bdle. 154, 34; Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 1 Edw. VI.
  • 70. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cxlv, 13.
  • 71. Pat. 42 Eliz. pt. xv, m. 34; Cal. S.P. Dom. 1598–1601, p. 237.
  • 72. Vide supra.
  • 73. Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 4 Jas. I; ibid. Hil. 7. Jas. I.
  • 74. Vide infra.
  • 75. Feet of F. Surr. Hil. 7 Jas. I.
  • 76. Close, 3 Chas. I, pt. ix, no. 22.
  • 77. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 6 Chas. I.
  • 78. Ibid. 14 Chas. I.
  • 79. Surr. Arch Coll. xvii, 97.
  • 80. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 3 Will. and Mary.
  • 81. Feet of F. Surr. Hil. 10 Anne.
  • 82. Ibid. East. 19 Geo. III.
  • 83. Ibid.
  • 84. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 185.
  • 85. Brayley, Hist. of Surr. iv, 283; Inst. Bks. (P.R.O.).
  • 86. See preceding note.
  • 87. Clergy Lists; Burke, Peerage, &c., Landed Gentry.
  • 88. Ibid.
  • 89. See note 82; Clergy Lists.
  • 90. Information from Sir John Watney.