Parishes: Nutfield

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.


, 'Parishes: Nutfield', in A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 3, (London, 1911) pp. 222-229. British History Online [accessed 30 May 2024].

. "Parishes: Nutfield", in A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 3, (London, 1911) 222-229. British History Online, accessed May 30, 2024,

. "Parishes: Nutfield", A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 3, (London, 1911). 222-229. British History Online. Web. 30 May 2024,

In this section


Notfelle (xi cent.); Notfeud, Nutfield and Notfeld (xiii cent.); Nutefeld and Nuttefeld (xiv cent.).

Nutfield is a village 3½ miles east of Reigate. The parish is bounded on the north by Gatton and Merstham, on the east by Blechingley and Burstow, on the south by a detached portion of (formerly) Horne, on the west by Horley and Reigate. It measures 5 miles from north to south, 2 miles from east to west in the northern part, and less than 1 mile in the southern part. It contains 3,576 acres.

The parish of Nutfield extends from the Upper Green Sand at the foot of the chalk range, over the Gault, the outcrop of which is wider here than is usually the case in Surrey, the Lower Green Sand, and the Wealden Clay, which forms the soil of the lower half of the parish. On the ridge of the Lower Green Sand there is a considerable width of the sandy clay known as the Sandgate Beds. This is the soil in which fullers' earth is found. It is in Nutfield that this has been most extensively worked, but it occurs, more or less, wherever the Sandgate Beds can be traced, and can be followed from West Surrey to Maidstone; its existence no doubt had a great deal to do with the formerly flourishing clothing trade of Surrey. The quality of the earth dug from the Nutfield pits, as well as the quantity, made them famous. (fn. 1) The industry was formerly of great importance, though not now so considerable; fullers' earth is still in demand however, owing to its peculiar properties in absorbing oil and grease. Pits are still worked in Nutfield parish, and close to the parish in Reigate. The Fullers' Earth Union, and the Surrey Fullers' Earth Company, are the principal proprietors. (fn. 2)

The village and church of Nutfield lie upon the Green Sand hill on the road between Blechingley and Reigate, which follows the top of the ridge, and is probably an ancient way. There is scarcely any open ground in the parish. A branch of the Mole traverses the southern part. The South Eastern Railway, Redhill and Tunbridge branch, runs through the parish from east to west; it was opened in 1842, but the station, at South Nutfield, some distance from Nutfield village, was only opened twenty years ago.

The hamlet called Ham, 2 miles south-west of Nutfield village, was an outlying part of Blechingley, added to Nutfield in 1894. (fn. 3)

The history of Nutfield, so far as it exists, is the history of the fullers' earth industry. But in 1755 about 900 Roman brass coins of the later empire were found in an earthen vessel crushed by a wheel in the road between Nutfield and Ham. (fn. 4) As roads were usually mended with stone from the nearest quarter, the vessel was probably brought with the stone from the Upper Sand ridge.

No Inclosure Act or Award is known. When Manning and Bray wrote, (fn. 5) there was waste at Nutfield Marsh where certain tenants only had rights of common.

The ridge of the hill at Nutfield offers a pleasant situation for houses, of which there are several of a good character. Nutfield Court is the seat of Mr. J. T. Charlesworth; Nutfield Priory, which stands in a park, of Mrs. Fielden; Woolpits, where was an old house, of Mr. Frederick Scrutton; Holmsdale House of Miss Sharwood. The Rev. E. Sandford, instituted in 1792, rebuilt the rectory; it stands in a small park. At South Nutfield, nearer the railway, a large number of gentlemen's houses have been built of late years.

There is a cemetery under Parish Council management.

The school (national) was built in 1863.

South Nutfield, or Lower Nutfield, is an ecclesiastical district in the middle part of the parish, near to and south of the railway. It was made an ecclesiastical district in 1888. The church (Christ Church) consecrated in 1888, is in 13th-century style, in red brick, consisting of nave, chancel, and north porch, with a shingled belfry and spire. The church stands near the old hamlet of Ridge Green.

An infant school (Church of England) was opened in 1889.

The southern part of the parish is in the ecclesiastical district of Outwood, formed in 1870 (see Burstow).


At the time of the Domesday Survey NUTFIELD was held of the king by Ida of Lorraine, wife of Count Eustace II of Boulogne. (fn. 6) Nutfield was afterwards held of the Crown as of the honour of Boulogne, (fn. 7) when that honour came to the king by forfeiture. (fn. 8) In the time of King Edward Ulwi had held Nutfield for 13½ hides; it was afterwards assessed for 3, but its value had increased from £13 to £15. (fn. 9) There were 10 serfs attached to the land, a somewhat large proportion. (fn. 10)

During the reign of Henry I the manor was granted by the king, at the petition of the Countess Ida, to the priory of St. Wulmar at Boulogne. (fn. 11) In 1195 Hubert de Anestie rendered account to the Exchequer of £16 for the farm of Nutfield, held of the abbot, and of £4 of that farm for the past year when the land was seized into the hands of the King of England because the abbot was of the land of the King of France. (fn. 12) Hubert de Anestie, still living in 1211–12, when he held the lordship of Nutfield, (fn. 13) left as heiress Denise, who married Warin de Monchensey. (fn. 14) In 1246–7 the Abbot of St. Wulmar quitclaimed to Monchensey and his heirs the £16 rent in Nutfield and all right which the abbot or his successors might have in the manor. (fn. 15)

Denise survived her husband Warin de Monchensey and her son William and, in 1288, after the death of the latter, was granted the custody of her son's lands during the minority of Denise, daughter and heir of William. (fn. 16) In 1290 Joan, half-sister of William de Monchensey, (fn. 17) and William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, her husband, protested against the right of the younger Denise to inherit her father's lands on the plea of illegitimacy, which was, however, disallowed. (fn. 18) In 1290 Denise was married to Hugh de Vere, (fn. 19) and in 1304 after the death of her grandmother, Denise de Monchensey, inherited the manor of Nutfield. (fn. 20) Denise the granddaughter died in 1314 and, her husband being already dead, the manor passed to her cousin Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, son of Joan Countess of Pembroke. (fn. 21) He died ten years later, but in the inquisition made on his lands at the time of his death there is no mention of Nutfield, though it is not evident when he parted with it. He held in 1316. (fn. 22) In 1325–6 it was held by John de Cobham, (fn. 23) to whom it had been demised by Sir Ralph de Cobham, (fn. 24) presumably his brother.

The latter seems to have been a younger brother of Stephen de Cobham of Rundale, but this is not certain. (fn. 25) He died before 1329, in which year, in a suit concerning the manor, John de Cobham, senior, stated that he held the manor for life, calling to warrant John, son and heir of Sir Ralph, then a minor. (fn. 26) At the same time Mary, widow of Sir Ralph and wife of Thomas Earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, claimed to hold a third as dower. (fn. 27) In 1359, probably after the death of John de Cobham, senior, the manor was held by Sir John de Cobham, son and heir of Ralph and Mary, usually referred to as the son of the Countess Marshal. (fn. 28) He alienated the manor to Fulcon Horwode in that year. This was apparently a grant for life only, (fn. 29) as Sir John de Cobham, who served in the French wars under the Black Prince, conveyed the reversion of his lands to the Crown in 1359, (fn. 30) 'by reason,' as was stated in 1377, when the matter came before Parliament, 'of the great love and good affection he bore towards the prince, eldest son of the said King' (Edward III). (fn. 31) Sir John surrendered his lands by giving the king a gold ring for livery of seisin, a procedure which Parliament, in 1377, stated to be legal and valid without any document, especially when such a surrender was made to the king himself. (fn. 32) The manor of Nutfield was among those so conveyed, (fn. 33) but though the king had re-granted the manor to Cobham for life, (fn. 34) it was seized into the king's hands in 1363, as it was found that the alienation to Fulcon de Horwode in 1359 had been made without royal licence, (fn. 35) and early in 1364 the manor was granted by the Crown to Sir Nicholas Lovayne, (fn. 36) to whom Horwode quitclaimed all right in 1365. (fn. 37) In 1367 William Strete presented to the church as lord of Nutfield. (fn. 38) It is probable that Strete obtained the manor in consequence of a debt incurred by Lovayne. In 1372 and for several years afterwards the manor was in the hands of trustees, who had been enfeoffed by consent both of Lovayne and of Strete, apparently for the purpose of raising the sum of £550 due to Strete from Lovayne. (fn. 39) In 1375 Strete acknowledged the payment of £275, (fn. 40) but soon after, possibly in payment of the remainder of the debt, Strete seems to have obtained full possession of the manor, as he held it in 1377, though it was still in the hands of trustees. (fn. 41) An inquisition taken in that year on the death of Sir John de Cobham, recording the grant of his lands to the Crown, states that William Strete held the manor of Nutfield. (fn. 42) In 1380 trustees quitclaimed the manor of Nutfield to Sir Nicholas Carew and his son Nicholas; (fn. 43) possibly this was also a mortgage. William Strete by his will, 1383, desired that his manor of Nutfield should be sold for £900, but that if the purchaser were Nicholas Carew the price should be £800. (fn. 44) Edmund Strete, kinsman and heir of William, quitclaimed all his right to the Carews in 1384. (fn. 45) Sir Nicholas the father died in 1390. (fn. 46) His son in 1432 settled the manor on himself and Mercy his wife and their issue; (fn. 47) it seems, about this period, to have been frequently in the hands of trustees. (fn. 48) The manor passed to his son and grandson; the latter died in 1466 and left a son, also called Nicholas, (fn. 49) who died soon after. The major part of his lands, including Beddington, then passed to his uncle, James Carew. (fn. 50)

Cobham. Gules a cheveron or with three stars sable thereon.

The manor of Nutfield was, however, divided among his sisters and co-heirs, (fn. 51) Sancha wife of John Iwardby or Ewerby, Anne wife of Christopher Tropenell, and Elizabeth wife of Walter Twynyho. (fn. 52) In 1508–9 Nutfield was held by John Ewerby, Anne Tropenell and Walter Twynyho. (fn. 53) The Ewerbys seem to have conveyed their share of the manor in equal portions to the other co-heirs, as complete moieties were soon after held by the Tropenell and Twynyho families. (fn. 54)

The manor was not again united until 1619. The Tropenell moiety descended to Thomas, also called Giles, son of Christopher and Anne, and to his daughters and co-heirs, Ann wife of John Eyre, Elizabeth wife of William Charde, Mary wife of John Young, and Eleanor wife of Andrew Blackman, all of whom were holding a moiety jointly in 1557. (fn. 55) The Chardes seem to have relinquished their share soon afterwards. In 1570 John Young and Mary conveyed a third of a moiety to Thomas Bristow. (fn. 56) In 1576 Richard Mompesson and Susan daughter and heir of Andrew Blackman (fn. 57) conveyed a third of the moiety to William Gawton, (fn. 58) who in 1583 obtained the third which belonged to the Eyres. (fn. 59) Gawton died ten years later seised of two-thirds of a moiety; (fn. 60) his son William (fn. 61) obtained Thomas Bristow's third in 1597, (fn. 62) and died seised of a complete moiety of the manor in 1610. (fn. 63) Richard Gawton, his son and heir, (fn. 64) conveyed this moiety in 1619 to Daniel Bassano and Thomas Turner. (fn. 65)

In the meantime the Twynyho moiety had passed from Walter Twynyho and Elizabeth to their son Edward, and to his son Anthony. (fn. 66) Anthony Twynyho died in 1529, and his sisters and co-heirs, Ann wife of Henry Heydon, and Katherine wife of John Dauntesay, each became seised of a moiety of a moiety. (fn. 67) That of the Heydons descended to Francis Heydon, their son and heir, while Bridget, daughter and heir of John and Katherine Dauntesay, married Hugh Hyde and inherited her mother's fourth share. (fn. 68) These parties held the moiety in 1564, (fn. 69) but Heydon probably quitclaimed his share soon after, as in 1566 Hugh Hyde and Bridget conveyed the entire moiety to Nicholas Best. (fn. 70) Apparently Nicholas at his death left the property to three sons in equal parts; Christopher Best, who died in 1598, held a third of a moiety of Nutfield, which he left to Nicholas his son and heir. (fn. 71) William Best was probably another son, and seems to have obtained both the share of his other brother and that of his nephew Nicholas, as he died in 1602 seised of a moiety of Nutfield, (fn. 72) and Henry, his son, (fn. 73) is referred to in 1603 and 1609 as holding an entire moiety. (fn. 74) In 1619 Henry Best and Etheldreda his wife conveyed this moiety to Daniel Bassano and Thomas Turner, who, (fn. 75) at the same time, obtained the Tropenell moiety as already shown. Bassano, barrister of the Inner Temple, was evidently a trustee as, in 1641, presumably after the death of Thomas Turner, he conveyed Nutfield to John Turner, eldest son of John Turner of Ham in Blechingley, to the second son, also called John, and to the third son Thomas. (fn. 76)

The eldest son died before 1651, (fn. 77) and John and Thomas Turner held Nutfield jointly in 1658. (fn. 78) Thomas the survivor, by will proved December 1671, devised the manor to John, George, and Thomas Turner, sons of his brother John, late of Ham. (fn. 79) The survivor John conveyed in 1707 to his son John in fee; the latter died in 1713, his sister Charity, wife of Joseph Cooke, being his heir. (fn. 80) On the death of the latter in 1740 without issue the manor was divided between Cooke's sisters and co-heirs, Elizabeth Eboral and Mary Gotty. (fn. 81)

Elizabeth's son William died in 1775 and he by will devised to his niece Mary Eliza who held this moiety in 1808. (fn. 82) William Gotty and Mary conveyed their moiety to Sir George Colebrook, bart., in 1763. (fn. 83) Colebrook in 1774 conveyed half to Anthony Aynscomb and half to John Clement; Aynscomb left his share to his wife, who died in 1800, with remainder to her sister Bett Tyler, afterwards wife of William Burtt, and she held this fourth part in 1808. (fn. 84) John Clement's fourth descended to his son and grandson, the latter selling in 1805 to John Perkins. (fn. 85) The parts held by Mary Eliza and the Burtts afterwards passed either to John Perkins or John Newton, as these two held the manor in 1841. (fn. 86) Newton afterwards obtained Perkins' share, and Mr. John Newton was lord of Nutfield until after 1895, after which date it passed to Jervis Kenrick, who held in 1899. Mr. Henry Partridge of Castle Hill, Blechingley, was recently lord of the manor, but it is now held with that house by Mr. A. P. Brandt.

William Charde and Elizabeth his wife, descendants of Ann Tropenell, held a moiety of the site and capital messuage of Nutfield in 1557. (fn. 87) According to Manning and Bray, using Mr. Glover's deeds, (fn. 88) it passed to a daughter of William Best above named, Mary wife of Richard Jewell. He left a son John, whose son, also John, married Mary Tyler and died without issue. She married Anthony Aynscomb, see above. It is now the property of Mr. J. T. Charlesworth.

The family of Hadresham or Hedresham was settled in Nutfield at the end of the 12th century, their lands there being afterwards known as the manor or reputed manor of HATHERSHAM. In the reign of Richard I Hubert de Anestie granted a wood in Nutfield called Widihorn to John de Hadresham and his heirs, (fn. 89) and about the same time John also received a grant of a mill there, the names of Robert and Peter de Hadresham appearing among the witnesses to this deed. (fn. 90) In 1271–2 Peter de Caterham and Alice his wife quitclaimed 6 acres of land in Nutfield to Bartholomew de Hadresham, (fn. 91) and in 1316 John, son of James de Hadresham, received a grant of a meadow there called Merchauntesmead. (fn. 92) In 1358 John de Hadresham died seised of a tenement in Nutfield, held of the chief manor, consisting of a capital messuage, 60 acres of land of which 20 could be cultivated, 4 acres of meadow, 20 of pasture, and 10 of wood. The tenement was said to be worth 23s. per annum. (fn. 93) The same amount was paid in the 17th century as the annual rent of the manor of Hathersham. (fn. 94) John left a son and heir, William de Hadresham. (fn. 95) The lands afterwards passed to the Asshurst family. William Asshurst held land in Nutfield in the early 15th century, (fn. 96) and in 1507 John Asshurst, son of William, died seised, among other lands, of the 'manor of Hadresham'; he left no issue. (fn. 97) Agnes, widow of John Asshurst, afterwards married John Skinner, (fn. 98) and seems to have brought this land to his family. Sir Thomas Wyatt the poet held the manor in 1538, (fn. 99) but he was possibly a trustee, his father, Sir Henry Wyatt, having acted as such for John Skinner and Agnes in the conveyance of property which they held in East Betchworth. (fn. 100) In 1556 the manor of Hathersham was held by James Skinner and Margaret his wife, (fn. 101) and on James's death without issue in 1558 passed to the family of his brother. (fn. 102) John Skinner, nephew of James according to the inquisition taken at his death, died seised of the manor in 1584. (fn. 103) Richard Elyot of Albury was a nephew and heir. (fn. 104) In 1603 Richard and Thomas Elyot conveyed the manor of Hathersham to Henry Drake and Charles Evans, (fn. 105) Sir Thomas Palmer and Alice his wife, widow of John Skinner, surrendering their claim. (fn. 106) Drake and Evans seem to have divided the manor, as in 1609 Drake died seised of a moiety, (fn. 107) which his son Edward conveyed to Richard Killick in 1614, (fn. 108) and in 1616 it passed from Killick to Henry Shove. (fn. 109) Shove apparently acquired the other moiety also, as his family afterwards held the entire manor, of which they retained possession until the latter part of the 18th century. (fn. 110) It was held in 1768 by Henry Shove and Ann his wife. (fn. 111) According to Manning, Shove died in 1771, when, by the terms of his will, Hathersham was sold, becoming the property of Robert Smith. (fn. 112) In 1790–1 Robert Smith the son and Elizabeth his wife sold to Sir Sampson Wright, (fn. 113) whose widow, Lady Wright, held the property in 1808. (fn. 114) It passed after her death to Mr. S. Simms. (fn. 115) It is now held as a farm.

In 1350 Thomas de Wolbergh died seised of a tenement in Nutfield which he held of the lord of Nutfield for the service of 33s. 9d. (fn. 116) His son, John de Wolbergh, was witness to a deed in 1359. (fn. 117) In 1364 Cecily de Beauchamp held five acres of meadow in Nutfield of John de Wolbergh. (fn. 118) In 1463 William Sydney died seised of the manor of WOLBERGH leaving two daughters and co-heirs, Elizabeth afterwards wife of John Hampden, and Anne, afterwards wife of William Uvedale. (fn. 119) The Uvedale moiety remained in this family until after 1528. (fn. 120)

In 1572 the whole manor was held by William Jeale. (fn. 121) In 1602 William and Ovington Jeale, probably sons of the first William, conveyed to George Evelyn, (fn. 122) who settled Wolbergh shortly after on his daughter Katherine on her marriage with Thomas Stoughton. (fn. 123) Stoughton, who survived his wife, died in 1611 seised of the 'manor or farm of Woolboro,' George Stoughton, his brother, being his heir. (fn. 124)

The latter conveyed the manor in 1623 to John Turner, (fn. 125) from whom it passed to Thomas Turner of Nutfield. The latter by will of 1671 left 'the messuage, &c., containing 160 acres in Nutfield in occupation of Anne Barnes called Woolborough,' to his nephew Thomas Turner. (fn. 126) The latter, according to Manning, conveyed in 1685 to William Barnes, whose son conveyed to William Lukyn in 1722. (fn. 127)

From Thomas and Robert Lukyn the property passed, in 1740, to Helen Shelley, (fn. 128) daughter of Robert Bysshe, wife of John Shelley, and grandmother of Sir Bysshe Shelley, who died in 1815. (fn. 129) He was succeeded by Sir Timothy Shelley, whose eldest son, Percy Bysshe Shelley, the poet, was drowned in 1822. Sir Timothy, at his death in 1844, was therefore succeeded by his grandson, Sir Percy Florence Shelley. (fn. 130)


—The family of atte Holilond was settled in Nutfield in the early 13th century. In an inquiry concerning their lands, made in the reign of Edward III, it was stated that during the reign of King John Denise de Monchensey (fn. 131) had alienated to Reginald de Holilond a messuage, 42 acres of land, 8 acres of meadow, 10 of pasture and 1 of wood in Nutfield, parcel of the manor of Nutfield, to hold to him and his heirs at the rent of the true value. (fn. 132) This alienation was made in 1202–3, the charter being enrolled 'in a certain missal' of Battle Abbey, the abbot of which, Richard atte Holilond, was brother to Reginald. (fn. 133) The property was afterwards held by Robert son of Reginald, and John son of Robert. (fn. 134) John atte Holilond in 1349 obtained a pardon from the Crown for having entered into the said premises without licence from the king; both his father and grandfather had been similarly in fault. (fn. 135) The name of Thomas atte Holilond appears as witness to a deed in 1359, (fn. 136) and in 1400 John atte Holilond held land in Nutfield. (fn. 137)

The subsequent ownership of these lands is not apparent, but they clearly had given their name to the family which held them so long, and the present Holland House, or Hall Land House, in Nutfield is the survival of the name.


The church of ST. PETER and ST. PAUL stands on a site with a steep northerly slope, close to the road, in a very pretty and well-planted churchyard, and some way below the crest of the ridge on which the village is built. It consists of a chancel 36 ft. 4 in. long by 17 ft 4 in. wide, north vestry and organ chamber, nave 40 ft. 2 in. by 22 ft. 3 in., north aisle 12 ft. 9 in. wide, south transept 10 ft. 3 in. deep by 14 ft. 11 in wide, south aisle 15 ft. 5 in. wide, south porch and a west tower 14 ft. 1 in. by 13 ft. wide. All these dimensions are taken within the walls.

The plan of the nave doubtless dates from the 12th century, but the oldest architectural details are to be found in the chancel, which inclines southward from the axis of the nave, and seems to have replaced the 12th-century chancel early in the 13th century. It was about 26 ft. long originally, but was lengthened 10 ft. early in the 14th century.

A north aisle was added to the nave about 1230; the arcade still remains, but the aisle walls have been removed at a widening of the aisle in the 15th century. The chancel arch was widened to its utmost limits early in the 14th century. A south transept was added in the 15th century, about 1450, and the west tower is the work of the latter half of the same century. The south aisle was built in 1882, and the north vestry and organ chamber are also modern. The tower has been repaired at different times, the upper part being much rebuilt late in the 18th century; in recent years a great deal of restoration work has been undertaken, with the result that nearly all the window tracery has been renewed.

The east window of the chancel has three cinquefoiled lights with tracery under a pointed head of 15th-century style, but all of modern stonework. The north-east window is of two trefoiled lights with a quatrefoil in the head under a two-centred arch, but only the inner jambs and hollow-chamfered rear arch are old. Just west of the window is a straight joint in the wall, which has been stripped of its plaster, marking the line of the east wall of the 13th-century chancel. In the 13th-century walling is one complete lancet, tall and narrow, with a plain chamfer on the outer face, now looking into the vestry, and close to it on the west the head of a second lancet of different detail, with an external rebate, and perhaps of earlier date. It is evident that the complete lancet was the eastern one of a pair, the springing of the rear arch of the second window being yet visible, but the window head just noticed is too near it to allow for a splay of equal angle, which would be natural in a pair of contemporary windows, and has either been moved eastward at the insertion of the modern arch to the organ chamber, or belongs to an older arrangement. As at present set, it is accurately half-way between the chancel arch and the east wall of the 13th-century chancel, a fact which suggests that it is in position, and that the complete lancet is a slightly later addition. This is also possible from the way in which the sill of the complete lancet breaks into the head of a recess in the sill below, which though now much altered was originally a locker with two arched openings, the eastern of which is now represented by its sill only, while the western has lost its inner order and is masked by a modern memorial brass hinged to serve as a door to it. Two cinquefoiled arches, one large and one small, open into the modern vestry and organ chamber.

Only the lower part of the 13th-century south wall of the chancel remains, the upper part having been rebuilt when the chancel was lengthened, with three windows, two of a single trefoiled light and one at the south-east of two cinquefoiled lights. Only the east jamb of the western of the two trefoiled lights is left, the window having given place to a two-light 15th-century window, but both the other windows preserve their old jambs and rear arches, the external masonry being modern. Below the south-east window is a 15th-century piscina with a shallow half-round basin in the sill and a shelf. Below the middle window is a 14th-century tomb recess with jambs of two chamfered orders, broach stopped, with a two-centred arch, dying on the chamfer of the jambs; in the recess is a contemporary slab with a floriated cross in low relief, and on its hollowed edge a partly destroyed inscription:—'SIRE THOM[AS DE R]OLEHAM GIST ICI DEU DE SA ALME EYT MERCI.' (fn. 138)

The chancel arch is a 14th-century insertion, having half-octagonal jambs with broach stops at the base, and moulded bell capitals with scroll-moulded abaci; the arch is double-chamfered on both sides and has no label.

The 13th-century north arcade of the nave is of three bays with circular pillars, water-moulded bases, and bell capitals; there is no east respond, the arch dying on the east wall face, but on the north face of the return in the aisle is a short length of chamfered abacus which looks to be of earlier date than the arcade, and may have belonged to an arch opening to a former north transept. The west respond is half-round with a capital like those of the pillars, but the base is buried beneath the floor. The arches are two-centred and of two chamfered orders.

The south arcade is of three bays, and is all modern except the east arch and respond, which has chamfered edges and a moulded capital of 15th-century detail. The pillars are circular with moulded capitals and bases; the eastern pillar having an attached shaft on its south side to receive the modern arch between the transept and aisle.

All the windows of the north aisle have been modernized outside; the first and third on the north are of two lights, and the middle one of three lights, all with traceried pointed heads of 15th-century style; the inner jambs are old, as are also the rear arches, which are hollow-chamfered, and the west window has two lights of 14th-century character with old inner jambs and arch. A modern archway opens from the aisle into the organ chamber.

The south transept has a 15th-century east window of two cinquefoiled ogee-headed lights with old tracery in a pointed head; the jambs are of two hollow chamfers, and the window has a moulded label outside. The south window of the transept has two lights under a geometrical traceried head; the inner quoins are old, but the outer stonework is all modern. Under the window are two recesses each 6 ft. 3 in. long with four-centred arches, doubtless sepulchral, but now empty; the chamfered jambs have broach stops at the base. On the outer face of the gable of the transept is a sundial dated 1758.

The south doorway is of the 15th century, moved out with the wall, and has moulded jambs and a two-centred arch. The two south windows of the aisle are square-headed, the first of three lights and the second of two; the west window is of three lights under a traceried pointed head; all three windows are modern.

The west tower is of three stories, but rises without a break. It is strengthened by diagonal buttresses at the western angles and has a stair-turret at its north-east corner. The arch opening into it from the nave has chamfered jambs and a two-centred arch of two hollow chamfers with a wide hollow between, and the west doorway is of two hollow-chamfered orders and has a four-centred head with a modern window of three lights over it. The second story is lighted on the north, south, and west by single trefoiled lights, and the third story by two-light windows with cinquefoiled four-centred heads. The diagonal buttresses are faced with stone slabs bearing inscriptions, now partly hidden by the cement coating, referring to some late 16th or 17th-century repairs, (fn. 139) and the tower is tied by iron rods, on the straps of which is the date 1740. Later repairs are shown by a small stone panel on the south side below the bell-chamber window bearing the date 1786, and this date also occurs on several rain-water heads. Over the tower is a shingled wood spire changing from square to octagon above the parapet, and crowned by a weather vane with the date 1767. The tower is coated with cement, which has fallen away here and there, showing that the parapet and upper parts of the buttresses have been repaired with brickwork. The north wall of the aisle, in addition to its east diagonal buttress and the two at the western angle, has been strengthened by raking buttresses of brick between the windows. The south porch is a modern one of wood. Owing to the slope of the ground there are several step; down from the south doorway to the floor level of the aisle.

Plan of the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Nutfield

The roof of the chancel is covered with Horsham stone slabs and has a modern wood-panelled ceiling; a moulded tie-beam across the middle appears to be old. The nave roof, also covered with Horsham slabs, is open timbered, a plaster ceiling having been removed; two of its tie-beams are old. The north aisle has a gabled roof with collar-beam trusses, formerly plastered; the timbers are old and plain, and the south aisle roof is modern. Both aisle roofs are tiled.

There is a good deal of interesting woodwork in the church.

In the chancel is a seat made up with two old bench-ends with carved poppy-heads, probably of early 16th-century date, and the 15th-century rood-screen still stands across the chancel arch. Its doorway has a two-centred pointed head with traceried spandrels, and the arch springs from carved bunches of foliage on the doorposts, on the inner faces of which are three sunk quatrefoils, an unusual detail. The side bays are each divided into two trefoiled openings, with a quatrefoil over in the traceried pointed head of the bay; the middle rail is moulded, and the plain boarding below it is modern in the south half of the screen. The muntins are all moulded: on the face of the northernmost is a short length of half-octagonal shaft with a moulded capital, from which sprang a vaulted cove below the loft; on the moulded cornice stands a line of brattishing, but the rest of the loft has, as usual, been removed. The space above the screen was evidently once boarded, as in the soffit of the chancel arch is a row of square holes (now filled in) in which the uprights were fixed.

The font is dated 1665, but the octagonal panelled bowl is clearly some two centuries earlier, and the date doubtless records its return to the church after having been thrown out by Puritan fanatics in the time of the Commonwealth.

The hexagonal pulpit contains a number of early 16th-century linen-pattern panels in two tiers, one pair of panels being modern; the framing of the pulpit appears to be modern also.

The middle window of the north aisle contains a few fragments of 15th-century glass in the two piercings over its middle light.

On the south wall of the chancel is a brass plate inscribed: 'Orate p' aiabz Willī-Graffton qndā Clīci hui' ecclesiae et Johē ux eius et Joh[] filli eordm qor aiabz ppiciet deus am[en].' Above it is the figure of a man in a long cloak girt at the waist and with fur trimming; his hands are clasped in prayer; also a woman in long high-waisted gown and a loose head-dress hanging down behind her. Over the man is a shield charged with a cheveron, and over the woman one charged with a cheveron impaling a saltire. On the south wall of the south aisle is a small 17th-century brass with a Latin inscription to Edmund Molyneux.

On the north wall of the chancel is a chalk panelled tablet to Charles Gillman, son of Anthony Gillman of Reigate. The date of his death was left blank, and has been roughly scratched in at a later date—'13th April 1631.' The inscription finishes: 'as by ye monumt of ye said Anthony in Reigat apears'; the shield over is charged with a leg cut off at the thigh, booted and spurred.

There are six bells; the treble by Mears and Stainbank, 1897; the second by William Eldridge, 1663; the third, Thomas Mears, 1793; the fourth, C. and G. Mears, 1848; the fifth and the tenor, Wm. Eldridge, 1662.

The oldest piece of the communion plate is a cup with a trumpet stem with the hall-mark of 1665; it has a cover dated 1666; there is also a chalice and paten of 1849. In the vestry are kept two wooden collecting boxes with handles, of the usual 17th-century type; both have painted inscriptions, 'Pray remember the poore,' with the name of the parish.

The registers date from 1558.


The Domesday Survey mentions the existence of a church at Nutfield, (fn. 140) but no other early record of it is found. It was valued at £8 12s. in the Taxatio of 1291. (fn. 141) It is not mentioned in the gift of the manor to the priory of St. Wulmar of Boulogne, nor in the surrender of the manor by the abbot to Warin de Monchensey, but there is nevertheless some reason for supposing that the advowson became the property of the priory and was retained after the surrender of the manor. John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, presented to the church in 1328, (fn. 142) and it is possible that he had received a grant of the advowson when the possessions of alien priories had been seized by the Crown some years before; another advowson which he held in 1328 had come into his possession in that manner. (fn. 143) In 1337, at the beginning of the Hundred Years' War, the Sheriff of Surrey was ordered to restore church, goods and chattels to Giles de Fossato, parson of Nutfield Church, whose possessions had been seized because he was 'a native of the power of the king of France.' (fn. 144) As a reason for this concession it was stated that the king had considered the poverty of Giles and wished to have compassion on him. (fn. 145)

It is not evident how the advowson passed to the lord of the manor, but it had become his property by 1363, (fn. 146) and was held by successive lords until the death, in 1466, of Nicholas Carew. (fn. 147) His son, who died shortly after, left, as has been shown, sisters and co-heirs who married into the families of Ewerby, Tropenell, and Twynyho, and each sister retained a third of the advowson. (fn. 148) The portions belonging to the two latter families descended with their respective shares of the manor (q.v.). (fn. 149) Of the latter property each of the two families afterwards held a complete moiety, which probably accounts for the fact that their shares of the advowson were constantly referred to as moieties also, though in reality they were thirds only. In 1580 William Best presented on a grant from William Charde and Elizabeth, one of the Tropenell heiresses. (fn. 150) These two thirds were finally conveyed to the Turner family in 1619. (fn. 151) The third held by the Ewerbys passed to the family of St. John by the marriage of Joanna the daughter and heir of Sir John Ewerby with John St. John. (fn. 152) The son of John and Joanna, also called John, (fn. 153) presented to the church in 1550, (fn. 154) and in 1590 conveyed one moiety of his third to Henry Burton and the other to Walter Cole. (fn. 155) In 1620 Walter Cole and William his son and heir sold their share to Sir Thomas Penruddock, Sir George Stoughton and George Duncombe, trustees of Ann, Dowager Countess of Arundel. (fn. 156) In 1626 presentation was made by Sir Julius Caesar by virtue of a grant made him by Burton and Cole, (fn. 157) presumably before the latter gave up his right in the advowson. The king presented by lapse in 1634 because Christopher Best had not sued out livery of the advowson. (fn. 158) Henry Lord Mowbray, grandson of Ann, Dowager Countess of Arundel, (fn. 159) presented in 1640, (fn. 160) and this family seems to have acquired Burton's share also, as in 1658 the Earl of Arundel held a full third turn of presentation, the other two-thirds of the advowson being held, as has been said, by John and Thomas Turner. (fn. 161) In 1660 the Crown presented. (fn. 162) According to Manning, Henry Lord Maltravers, Earl of Norwich, and Henry Howard his son granted the next turn to West and Keck in trust for Burbury in 1676, (fn. 163) and in 1677 John and Thomas Turner granted their turn to Henry Hesketh, who afterwards purchased Burbury's interest and sold to William Hollingsworth. (fn. 164) The latter presented in 1711 and again in 1731. (fn. 165) Lord Mowbray (fn. 166) finally conveyed his share to William Beckford in trust for Sir Lionel Jenkins who, by will, devised it to Jesus College, Oxford. The Turners' share descended with the manor (q.v.), and after the death of William Hollingsworth presentation was made both by Joseph Cooke, as lord of the manor, and by Jesus College. The case was brought before a commission of six clergy and six laymen, but as these decided equally in favour of the college and lord of the manor, nothing was settled. (fn. 167) Finally, however, a decision in Cooke's favour seems to have been made, as his incumbent continued to hold the living. (fn. 168) The college afterwards treated with him for purchase, but the transaction was not completed until after his death, his sisters conveying to the college shortly after 1740. (fn. 169) Jesus College has since held the advowson. (fn. 170)


Smith's Charity is distributed as in other Surrey parishes.


  • 1. Topley, Geol. of the Weald, 130–3.
  • 2. V.C.H. Surr. ii, 279–80.
  • 3. By Loc. Govt. Bd. Order 31855.
  • 4. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 266, and local information.
  • 5. Hist. of Surr. ii, 266.
  • 6. V.C.H. Surr. i, 312b, and note 5.
  • 7. Vide infra; Chan. Inq. p.m. Edw. II, file 34, no. 7.
  • 8. After the death of William son of King Stephen in 1159 the honour was in diminio Regis; Pipe Roll 8 Hen. II, m. 1 d.
  • 9. See note 6.
  • 10. V.C.H. Surr. i, 314, n. 2.
  • 11. Cart. Antiq. A. 30.
  • 12. Pipe R. 7 Ric. I, m. 18 d.
  • 13. Red Bk. of Exch. (Rolls Ser.), 582.
  • 14. Ibid. 500; Cal. of Chart. 1226–57, p. 288; Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.) 252. This Warin de Monchensey is stated, in the pedigrees, to have married Joan, sister of the Earl of Pembroke, by whom he had a daughter Joan. It is, however, quite evident from the documents above cited that he must have married, as his second wife, Denise who was the mother of his son William. A pedigree of the Monchenseys in Lansd. MS. 860, fol. 166, confuses this Denise de Anestie, who married into the family, with the Denise who married Hugh de Vere and who was really granddaughter of the first Denise. Hubert de Anestie's wife was also called Denise (Add. Chart. 24606), but it was certainly his daughter, not his widow, who married Warin de Monchensey. See also note on Holilond, infra.
  • 15. Feet of F. Surr. 31 Hen. III, no. 309.
  • 16. Cal. Pat. 1281–92, p. 292.
  • 17. See note 14; G.E.C. Peerage, &c.
  • 18. Rolls of Parl. i, 38b.
  • 19. Cal. Pat. 1280–92, p. 376.
  • 20. Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 252; Abbrev. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com.), i, 133.
  • 21. Chan. Inq. p.m. Edw. II, file 34, no. 7.
  • 22. Harl. MS. 6281.
  • 23. Close, 19 Edw. II, m. 4.
  • 24. De Banco R. 275, m. 39 d.
  • 25. Banks, Dormant & Ext. Bar. i, 270; Dugdale, Bar.; G.E.C. Peerage, &c.
  • 26. De Banco R. 275, m. 39 d.
  • 27. Ibid. Most pedigrees (G.E.C., Dugdale, &c.), state that Ralph de Cobham probably lived till after 1338, when Thomas Earl of Norfolk died; and that Cobham then married the latter's widow. It is clear, however, from the above that Cobham died before 1329, and that Mary was his widow when she became the wife of Thomas, Earl of Norfolk.
  • 28. Add. Chart. 23615, 23619–20; G.E.C. Peerage, &c.
  • 29. Add. Chart. 23619–20.
  • 30. Chan. Inq. p.m. 1 Ric. II, no. 146b.
  • 31. Rolls of Parl. iii, 8a.
  • 32. Ibid.
  • 33. Add. Chart. 23621; Esch. Enr. Accts. Surr. & Suss. bdle. 5, no. 14; Chan. Inq. p.m. 1 Ric. II, no. 146b.
  • 34. See notes 30 and 32.
  • 35. Abbrev. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com.), ii, 275; Esch. Enr. Accts. Surr. and Suss. bdle. 5, no. 14.
  • 36. Cal. Rot. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 176b; Esch. Enr. Accts. Surr. and Suss. bdle. 5, no. 15.
  • 37. Close, 39 Edw. III, m. 26 and 25.
  • 38. Egerton MS. 2030, fol. 97; Winton Epis. Reg. Wykeham, i, fol. 6b.
  • 39. Add. Chart. 23622; Close, 45 Edw III, m. 11.
  • 40. Add. Chart. 23623.
  • 41. Chan. Inq. p.m. 1 Ric. II, no. 146b; Add. Chart. 23624–8.
  • 42. Chan. Inq. p.m. 1 Ric. II, no. 146b.
  • 43. Add. Chart. 23267–8.
  • 44. Coll. Topog. et Gen. iii, 100.
  • 45. Add. Chart. 23629.
  • 46. Chan. Inq. p.m. 14 Ric. II, file 63, no. 10.
  • 47. Close, 10 Hen. VI, m. 4; Feet of F. Surr. 10 Hen. VI, no. 14.
  • 48. Ibid.; Close, 6 Hen. V, m. 6, 13. Add. Chart. 23632, 23633, 23635. Nicholas Carew died in the year of settlement, 1432. (Monumental inscription at Beddington.)
  • 49. Chan. Inq. p.m. 6 Edw. IV, file 21, no. 40.
  • 50. Cal. of Inq. Hen. VII, i 362.
  • 51. By the Visit. of Surr. (Harl. Soc. Publ. xliii) 17, it would appear that Nicholas, James's brother, had no male issue and left three daughters only. An inquisition on James, however (Cal. of Inq. Hen. VII, i, 362), states that the latter obtained Beddington, &c., after the death of his nephew Nicholas, which makes it probable that those pedigrees giving Nicholas, James's brother, a son as well as three daughters are correct. See also Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), xxxv, 52.
  • 52. Berry, Surr. Gen. 3; Visit. of Gloucester (Harl. Soc. xxi), 263; Lysons, Environs of Lond. i, 53; The Tropenell Cart. (Wilts. Arch. Soc.), Introd. and vol. ii.
  • 53. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), xxi, 118.
  • 54. Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), xc, 10; Feet of F. Div. Co. East. 3 & 4 Phil. and Mary, vide infra. John St. John, however, descendant of the Ewerbys, afterwards held a rent of 4 marks from the manor of Nutfield (Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 32 Eliz.) vide the church.
  • 55. Tropenell Cart. ii (Wilts. Arch. Soc.); Feet of F. Div. Co. East. 3 & 4 Phil. and Mary.
  • 56. Feet of F. Surr. Hil. 12 Eliz.
  • 57. Visit. of Wilts. 1623 (ed. Geo. Marshall), 97.
  • 58. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 18 Eliz.
  • 59. Ibid. Mich. 25 & 26 Eliz.
  • 60. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccxlvii, 21.
  • 61. Ibid.
  • 62. Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 39 & 40 Eliz.
  • 63. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccxiv, 144.
  • 64. Ibid.
  • 65. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 17 Jas. I.
  • 66. Visit. Gloucester (Harl. Soc. xxi), 263; Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), bdle. 40, no. 10; Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), l, 84.
  • 67. Ibid.
  • 68. Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), bdle. 40, no. 10.
  • 69. Ibid.
  • 70. Feet of F. Surr. East. 8 Eliz. As late as 1639 a fine occurs (Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 14 Chas. I) in which Richard and Anthony Hyde, heirs of Hugh and Bridget (Berry, Hants Gen. 108) quitclaim their right in a moiety of Nutfield to William Best, who, according to Manning and Bray, was son to Henry Best. The latter's conveyance of 1619 must have been in trust, and the original title had to be confirmed to make it absolute.
  • 71. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccclv, 35.
  • 72. Ibid. cccvii, 7.
  • 73. Ibid.
  • 74. Ibid. cccxiv, 126; ccxc, 124. In a recovery in 1617 of a moiety of the manor between Henry Best and another, Nicholas Best was called to warranty, the deed being probably a surrender of all his claim in the manor preparatory to its sale by Henry (Recov. R. East. 15 Jas. I, rot. 125).
  • 75. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 17 Jas. I.
  • 76. Close, 17 Chas. I, pt. xv, no. 16.
  • 77. Cal. of Com. for Compounding, 2870.
  • 78. Surr. Arch. Coll. xvii, 98.
  • 79. P.C.C. 150 Duke.
  • 80. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 271; Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 12 Anne.
  • 81. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 271.
  • 82. Ibid.
  • 83. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 3 Geo. III.
  • 84. See notes 81, 82.
  • 85. Ibid.
  • 86. Brayley, Hist. of Surr. iv, 331.
  • 87. Feet of F. Surr. East. 3 & 4 Phil. and Mary.
  • 88. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 272.
  • 89. Add. Chart. 24607.
  • 90. Ibid. 24606.
  • 91. Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 56 Hen. III.
  • 92. Add. Chart. 24608.
  • 93. Chan. Inq. p.m. 32 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 40.
  • 94. Ibid. (Ser. 2), cccxiv, 126.
  • 95. Ibid. 32 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 40.
  • 96. Feet of F. Surr. 7 Hen. V, no. 34.
  • 97. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), xx, 24.
  • 98. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 3 Hen. VIII; East. 4 Hen. VIII.
  • 99. Ibid. Trin. 30 Hen. VIII.
  • 100. See note 98.
  • 101. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cciv, 123.
  • 102. Ibid.
  • 103. Ibid. He was really a great-nephew (Berry, Surr. Gen. 25; Visit. of Surr. [Harl. Soc. xliii] 59).
  • 104. Ibid.
  • 105. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 1 Jas. I.
  • 106. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccxiv, 126; Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 273.
  • 107. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccxiv, 126.
  • 108. Ibid.; Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 12 Jas. I.
  • 109. Ibid. Hil. 13 Jas. I.
  • 110. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 273; P.C.C. Henchman 64; Feet of F. Surr. East. 2 Geo. III.
  • 111. Ibid. Mich. 8 Geo. III.
  • 112. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 273.
  • 113. Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 31 Geo. III.
  • 114. See note 112.
  • 115. Brayley, Hist. of Surr. iv, 332.
  • 116. Chan. Inq. p.m. 24 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 91; Cal. of Close, 1249–54, p. 182.
  • 117. Add. Chart. 231619–20.
  • 118. Chan. Inq. p.m. 38 Edw. III (1st. nos.), no. 8.
  • 119. Esch. Inq. (Ser. 1), file 1805, 3 Edw. IV; Chan. Inq. p.m. 17 Edw. IV, no. 38.
  • 120. Ibid. (Ser. 2), l, 120.
  • 121. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 14 Eliz.
  • 122. Ibid. Hil. 44 Eliz.
  • 123. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccxc, 124; Feet of F. Surr. East. 3 Jas. I.
  • 124. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccxxiv, 159; cccxcvii, 17.
  • 125. Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 21 Jas. I.
  • 126. P.C.C. 150 Duke.
  • 127. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 273.
  • 128. Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 15 Geo. II.
  • 129. See note 127 (private deed); The Shelley Pedigree (privately printed 1816).
  • 130. Brayley, Hist. of Surr. iv, 332.
  • 131. It seems quite impossible that this can be the Denise, Anestie's daughter who died in 1304. It can scarcely have been her mother, Denise, wife of Hubert de Anestie. It is very difficult to account for, as it seems to connect the Monchenseys with Nutfield before the marriage of Denise with Warin de Monchensey. Perhaps the inquisition is wrong in its dates, but Richard was abbot 1215–35.
  • 132. Cal. Pat. 1348–50, p. 288; Inq. a.q.d. file 288, no. 3.
  • 133. Chan. Inq. p.m. 2 Edw. III (2nd nos.), no. 4.
  • 134. Ibid.; Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 24 Edw. I.
  • 135. Cal. Pat. 1348–50, p. 288; Abbrev. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com), ii, 204.
  • 136. Add. Chart. 23615.
  • 137. Feet of F. Surr. 2 Hen. IV, no. 11.
  • 138. The complete inscription is given in Manning and Bray, op. cit.
  • 139. Cracklow gives the date as 1594, on the north-west buttresses.
  • 140. V.C.H. Surr. i, 312b.
  • 141. Pope Nich. Tax (Rec. Com.), 208b.
  • 142. Egerton MS. 2032, fol. 67 (Winton Epis. Reg. Index); Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 274.
  • 143. Cal. Pat. 1327–30, p. 315.
  • 144. Cal. Close, 1337–9, p. 160.
  • 145. Ibid.
  • 146. Add. Chart. 23621.
  • 147. Vide manor of Nutfield; Egerton MSS. 2033, 2034.
  • 148. Vide infra.
  • 149. Feet of Div. Co. 35 Hen. VIII; Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), xc, 10; East. 3 & 4 Phil. and Mary; Mich. 6 & 7 Eliz.
  • 150. Add. MS. 6167, fol. 317.
  • 151. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 17 Jas. I, 2.
  • 152. Berry, Hants Gen. 230.
  • 153. Ibid.
  • 154. Egerton MS. 2034, fol. 169; Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 274.
  • 155. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 32 Eliz.
  • 156. Close, 18 Jas. I, pt. iii, no. 37; Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 18 Jas. I; G.E.C. Peerage; Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 509.
  • 157. Add. MS. 6167, fol. 317.
  • 158. Winton Epis. Reg. Neile, fol. 9a. As Christopher Bert died in 1598 this was rather a flagrant case of raking up of old claims by the Crown, characteristic of the period of personal government, when the rule 'nullum tempus regi obstat' was pushed to an extreme.
  • 159. G.E.C. Peerage.
  • 160. See note 157.
  • 161. Surr. Arch. Coll. xvii, 98.
  • 162. Inst. Bks. (P.R.O.).
  • 163. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 275.
  • 164. Ibid.
  • 165. Inst. Bks. (P.R.O.). The Visitation of 1725 says the Hollingsworths had the advowson for two lives only.
  • 166. Henry Howard was created Lord Mowbray in 1679.
  • 167. Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. ii, 274 (quoting from Mr. Cooke's papers in private hands).
  • 168. Ibid.
  • 169. Ibid.
  • 170. Inst. Bks. (P.R.O.).