Parishes: Artington (Guildford St Nicholas)

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: Artington (Guildford St Nicholas)', in A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 3, (London, 1911) pp. 3-10. British History Online [accessed 29 February 2024]

In this section


(In the Parish of St. Nicholas, Guildford)

Ertindun (xiii cent.)

The parish of St. Nicholas, Guildford, contains 2,693 acres. It is for the greater part of its eastern side bounded by the Wey, on the left bank of which it lies. A great part of the parish is in the borough of Guildford, and part has always been in the borough, so far as is known. But the rural part of the parish has always been in Godalming Hundred, and the parish, 3 miles north to south, 2 or 1½ miles east to west, was originally a rural parish. The idea suggested in old histories that Guildford was once in this parish on the left bank of the Wey is baseless. The name 'Bury Fields,' in St. Nicholas parish, refers of course to the town fields, not to the town. Neither have draining or building revealed any old foundations on the left bank. The Guildford Cemetery is in the parish of St. Nicholas, in the part included in the borough since 1904. It is under a joint committee on which the rural parish is represented.

The main part of the parish is on the Green Sand, with an outcrop of the Atherfield and of the Wealden Clay in the middle of it. But the northern part crosses the chalk ridge of the Hog's Back and reaches on to the Woolwich Beds and London Clay beyond.

Guildford station is in the parish, and of late years, in the neighbourhood of the station and on the Hog's Back, building has much increased. The Portsmouth road also traverses the parish, and houses extend along it for a mile, connecting Guildford with the hamlet of St. Catherine's. The old Portsmouth road came past St. Nicholas's Church, along Bury Fields, and up what was called the Little Mount into the line of the present road. The old Farnham road came along the ridge of the Hog's Back and down the Great Mount by a very steep descent. (fn. 1) The Act of Parliament for making the new Farnham road was passed in 1796, but the road was not begun till some years later. A parcel of land south of the Great Mount is in Farnham Manor, and was the site probably of a lodging of the Bishop of Winchester when he was travelling on the road. The end of the Hog's Back is known as Guildown, and this old Farnham road is the Strata de Geldedone referred to in the Pipe Rolls of 1189 as the southern boundary of the purlieu of Windsor Forest.

In the south of the parish part of the common called Peasemarsh is included. Great part of this was inclosed in 1803. It is very poor soil. In the old river gravel on it some palaeolithic flints have been found.

The northern part of the parish beyond the Hog's Back is called Guildford Park. This was the site of the old royal park of Guildford. Much of the history of the park is involved in that of the forest of Windsor, the Surrey bailiwick of which extended over the whole county north of the Hog's Back and west of the Wey. It would appear that Henry II inclosed the park at the beginning of his reign. (fn. 2) The custody of the park often went with the office of constable of the castle and steward of the king's manor, for Guildford was a royal manor and castle from before the Conquest. There was a manorhouse in the park, but it was quite a small place. The residence of the kings, who were frequently in Guildford, was in the castle. It was here that the extensive buildings and decorations of Henry III were executed, not at the park manor-house, for they involved buying of land for the extension of the building, an impossibility at the latter place, which lay in the middle of the park surrounded by the king's land on every side. In 1299 the park was assigned to Margaret, second wife of Edward I, (fn. 3) but reverted to the Crown under Edward II. When Edward III granted the royal manor in fee-farm to the good men (probi homines) of Guildford the park and castle were reserved. Helming Leggette was given the custody of the park for life in 1370. (fn. 4) On the decease of Sir Hugh Waterton it was granted to Sir John Stanley for life in 1409–10. (fn. 5) In 1444 it was granted to John Genyn and Richard Ludlow, serjeants of the king's cellar, and to Richard's heirs. (fn. 6) But in 1463 Edward IV granted it to Thomas St. Leger, who married his sister Anne, widow of the Duke of Exeter, and gave him the further charge of certain enlargements of the park made before 1475–6. (fn. 7) St. Leger received the herbage and pannage of the park, without rendering account, and £10 a year for the maintenance of the deer in winter. (fn. 8) The manor of Cleygate in Ash was granted to St. Leger in 1475, for the further maintenance of the game. (fn. 9) He was attainted for rebellion against Richard III, when the custody of the park was perhaps given to William Mistelbroke, who received Cleygate. (fn. 10) In 1488 Sir Reginald Bray received the custody of the park, and Cleygate. (fn. 11) Sir Michael Stanhope was the next holder. (fn. 12) When Guildford Grammar School was refounded by Edward VI, the Marquis of Northampton held it. (fn. 13) Under Elizabeth Lord Montague was keeper, and had much anxiety with poachers of deer and snarers of rabbits and pheasants. (fn. 14) He died 1592, and Sir Thomas Gorges, who had married Northampton's widow, was perhaps the next keeper. In his time Norden's survey was executed. He describes the park as of 6¼ miles' circuit with 7½ miles of pales. Part of the southern side was inclosed and cultivated. It contained 1,620 acres by estimation, and was 'meanely timbered,' not enough to repair the pales. There were about 600 fallow deer, but 'not above 30 bucks,' i.e. males of two years old and upwards. The manor-house was 'puled down and defaced.' This stood, by his plan, where the farm called Manor Farm is now. There were three other lodges. The chief lodge was by the bank of the river, and is partly standing now as a farm-house at the end of Walnut Tree Close, between the railway and the river. The 'Deer Leap,' or place for taking deer alive, was by the side of the Great Mount, where a path now leads from the mount to the new Farnham road. (fn. 15) Mr. Carter was then under-keeper. He was the Mr. John Carter who later received a grant of Guildford Castle. Gorges died in 1610, and John Murray, afterwards Earl of Annandale, succeeded. In 1631 Charles I granted it to him in fee-simple, to be held as for a quarter of a knight's fee, and by his heirs for ever. (fn. 16) His son, the second earl, died childless, and the Guildford Park Estate was ultimately sold in 1709 to the Hon. Thomas Onslow, afterwards Lord Onslow, and the park was disparked before 1717. The park extended from the road on the Hog's Back to the road between Woodbridge and Worplesdon, and from close to the river to a line of hedges and a green lane east of a small stream and west of Strawberry Grove, which exactly corresponds to the boundary on John Norden's plan.

West of St. Catherine's Hill stand St. Catherine's House, in which the late Mr. W. More-Molyneux lived, and Mount Browne, the residence of the Dowager Marchioness of Sligo. Littleton School was built by Mr. James More-Molyneux of Loseley in 1843. It has been recently enlarged, and a service is celebrated there on Sundays by a curate of St. Nicholas. It was let to the County Council in 1903. A new school is in course of erection.



ARTINGTON MANOR was originally a part of Godalming, from which it was separated by Henry II, who, about the year 1171, bestowed it on Master David of London, an ambassador at Rome. (fn. 17) This Master David granted it in fee farm to Ralph de Broc for £15, with whose daughter Stephen de Turnham had it in marriage. (fn. 18) In 1191 and again in 1205 Stephen obtained royal confirmations of his right to the manor. (fn. 19) In 1220, shortly after Stephen's death, his widow Edelina, daughter of Ralph de Broc, put forward her claim to certain rents in Artington against Stephen's five coheiresses, Mabel wife of Thomas de Bauelingham, Alice wife of Adam de Bendeng, Eleanor wife of Roger de Layburn, Eleanor wife of Ralph son of Bernard, and Beatrice wife of Ralph de Fay. (fn. 20) Edelina entered upon the land, but probably only for life. The manor was divided into four portions, of which Mabel de Bauelingham obtained one, the manor of Artington; Beatrice de Fay a second; a third portion, which was Alice de Bendeng's, afterwards formed part or the whole of the manor of Braboeuf; and a fourth became the manor of Piccard's.

Artington Manor, i.e. the portion of the original manor which was assigned to Mabel de Bauelingham, descended with her manor of Catteshull (fn. 21) till William Weston and his wife Joan sold the latter in 1384–5, but retained Artington. (fn. 22) A rent roll of William Weston's lands in Artington, dated 3 November 1394, is among the Loseley Manuscripts. (fn. 23) John Weston of Weston died seised of Artington 17 November 1440, leaving three married daughters, Agnes wife of John atte Hull, Joan wife of John Skynet, and Anne wife of Thomas Slifield. (fn. 24) Of these we find that Agnes atte Hull died in widowhood in the year 1488 seised of the manor of Artington, Henry atte Hull being her grandson and heir. (fn. 25) The overlordship was conveyed to Sir George More of Godalming, 3 November 1601, and the manor of Artington has since been in the family of More of Loseley. Artington Manor Farm was the manor house.


BRABOEUF MANOR, which extends very widely about St. Catherine's Hill and towards Godalming, includes that portion of Stephen de Turnham's manor which was assigned to his daughter Alice de Bendeng, for she granted her portion of Artington to Geoffrey of Braboeuf in 1232, (fn. 26) and he had confirmation of the grant in 1251. (fn. 27) He had other lands in Artington and Guildford, and in 1257, together with Richard Testard, obtained a royal grant of the sites of old mills in Guildford which they had recently sold to the king, and also of new mills which they were to remove to the site of the old ones. (fn. 28) Cicely 'la Braboeuf' held a quarter of the manor at 'Artington next Braboeuf' at her death in 1347, (fn. 29) probably as dower. John Braboeuf witnessed deeds of Artington in 1337 and again in 1350. (fn. 30) Andrew Braboeuf, son of Andrew and Cecily de Braboeuf, died seised of one quarter of Artington in 1361–2, leaving a daughter Agnes, (fn. 31) who married first Robert Danhurst, and secondly, Robert Loxley. At her death her grandson Robert Danhurst inherited her lands. He died s.p.m. in 1481–2, having settled Braboeuf on Bernard Jenyn and his wife Elizabeth, who was niece of Agnes Braboeuf's second husband Robert Loxley. (fn. 32) Bernard Jenyn settled the manor on his second son Thomas, (fn. 33) who died in March 1508–9. (fn. 34) Sir John Jenyn, kt., son of Thomas Jenyn, died holding Braboeuf in 1545, leaving a son Edward aged five, (fn. 35) who died a minor and was succeeded by his aunt Joan, wife of Robert Kemp. (fn. 36) Agnes, wife of John Wight of Wimbledon, and daughter of Joan Kemp, was in possession of Braboeuf in 1559, (fn. 37) and was succeeded by her son Rice (Riceus) Wight, who died at Artington 31 October 1602. His son John was born in 1674 and died in 1656, his son John died 1707 and was succeeded by his eldest surviving son William, who died in 1722, and his son Tempest Wight died 1768. John Wight, his son, died 1817, his son Arthur Wight died 1847, having married Jane More-Molyneux of Loseley. His son Albert Wight died in 1905, and his widow, née Mary Anne Boulderson, is lady of the manor. (fn. 38)

Braboeuf Manor House is now occupied by Mr. J. A. C. Younger. It has been much modernized, but retains much of its original 16th-century work. It was evidently a half-timber house consisting of a main body facing east, as at present, with projecting wings at either end; the north wing has disappeared, but the south wing still stands with the main portion. To the south of this old building are a modern diningroom and conservatory, and a modern wing extending to the west.

The walls are now of modern stone, with mullioned windows. The ground floor of the main (former) central body contains the hall, entered directly by the main entrance close to the south wing; the library, at the north end of the hall, and doubtless once a part of it; and the stair hall and other rooms to the west, behind the hall, &c. The south wing contains chiefly the billiard-room. Over the hall is the drawing-room, with a fine fireplace (dated 1586), and bedrooms, &c., and on the second floor are attic bedrooms.

The entrance doorway—now within a modern porch—has an old oak moulded frame. The hall has a good late 16th-century ceiling, with heavy beams running east and west, and a shallower one running lengthwise (north and south), and upon the latter and the walls are the joists, also running east and west; all the beams and joists have moulded soffits. The fireplace on the west side of the hall contains some 17th-century carving, made up with later work; the walls of the hall are lined with late 16th or early 17th-century panelling; some of it is set in an irregular fashion. Doorways at the ends give access to the library and billiard-room, and an archway opposite the entrance doorway opens on to the stair hall. The thin wall dividing the hall from the library is evidently a later insertion, but it is covered with the old panelling on the hall side. The library has a plain plaster ceiling, which probably conceals some moulded woodwork as in the hall, and a heavy encased wood girder close to the partition would, no doubt, prove to be similar to the others. In the library is a large cupboard front containing some of the original carved late 16th-century oak work in its cornice, &c., made up with more modern woodwork; it stood formerly against the partition at the south end of the hall. The staircase is late 17th-century work; it has turned balusters, and heavy panelled square newels with shaped heads, and very heavy moulded handrail, 8 in. by 7 in.

The drawing-room on the first floor has a good stone fireplace and chimneypiece in its outer or east wall between the two windows. The opening has a flat, four-centred arch, enriched with leaf and rose ornament; above this is a fluted frieze with roses and portcullises. The rest of the space above this is divided by pilasters into two bays, the lower parts treated as panels with a moulded cornice, and containing leaf designs; the upper parts filled with a large Tudor rose and a portcullis carved in high relief; each is surmounted by a small crown. At the top, close to the ceiling, is carved the date 1586. The whole of the fireplace is decorated with paint, most of it modern, but said to be a restoration of the original colour. The room has modern oak wall lining, and an enriched plaster ceiling of four bays divided by moulded wood beams. In some of the bedrooms on this floor are some 17th-century panelling and plain old beams, and one of the attic bedrooms also has some similar panelling below its window.

Over the porch entrance outside is set a small old stone, carved with a representation of a phoenix, perhaps the mark of an insurance company.

The grounds and park contain nothing of note. There appears to have been no formal garden about the house, or it has long since disappeared, as also has the ancient dovecot which is mentioned in various old records.

Beatrice de Fay's portion of Artington consisted of 20s. rent and a quarter of a mill. These she granted to the abbey of Wherwell, co. Hants, towards the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate in the chapel of St. Mary in the little meadow called St. Mary's Garden. (fn. 39) In 1241–2 the abbess sued her tenants in Artington for rent. (fn. 40) At the time of the surrender of the abbey in November 1539 lands and rent in Artington were still amongst its possessions. (fn. 41) These were leased out by the Crown from time to time, the lessee in 1567 being Michael Kettelwell, (fn. 42) and in 1595 Sir John Wolley, kt. (fn. 43) At this date the lands included 'Millmeade' in Guildford. Sir John's son Francis Wolley possibly obtained a grant in perpetuity, for he bequeathed his lands in Artington to 'the maiden child christened by his wife and Mrs. Bridget Weston in Pirford Church by name of Mary Wolley,' with remainder to Sir Arthur Mainwaring. (fn. 44) The latter was disputing lands called the 'Holy Lands' in Artington in 1628; they had lately been the property of Wherwell Abbey, and were claimed by a certain Thomas Tuesley. At this date they included 'an ancient dwelling-house' (fn. 45) near St. Catherine's Hill, various fields at Artington, and one-sixth of Millmead. (fn. 46) The estates have since been broken up, and part has been bought by the Wight family.


LITTLETON near Loseley Park is a hamlet of Artington, and now consists of Orange Court, Orange Court Farm, and a few cottages. Littleton is mentioned in the Domesday Survey as being held by Wulwi the huntsman, who had been in possession of it before the Conquest. (fn. 47) Under Edward the Confessor it was assessed for 2 hides and paid no geld, but in 1086 it was only assessed for 1 virgate. In 1218–19 William le Gras of Littleton granted 2 acres in a field called la Hulle and other land on 'Lidhe' and Guildown to Robert son of William of Littleton for a yearly rent. (fn. 48) In 1285 Nicholas le Gras, who was Sheriff of Surrey, obtained a grant of free warren in his demesne lands of Littleton and Artington. (fn. 49) He died before December 1293, (fn. 50) and seems to have been succeeded by Ralph le Gras, (fn. 51) whose brother and heir was Roger. Roger le Gras died seised of the manor of Littleton on 28 November 1303, having been murdered in Essex. (fn. 52) His heir was his brother Nicholas, aged twenty-two. (fn. 53) It then included a capital messuage and three free tenants and was held of John of Cobham by service of entertaining him in food and drink for two nights yearly. (fn. 54) Nicholas le Gras, brother to Roger, was in possession of it in 1323–4. (fn. 55) The manor included much more than the present hamlet and ran up to the road (via regia) on the Hog's Back. (fn. 56) It is interesting to see that these old manors, Loseley and Littleton, were, like the old parishes generally, (fn. 57) bounded by the ridge of the chalk downs. John le Em of Compton had lands and rent there in 1325, (fn. 58) and William Shepherd and his wife Margaret sold 60 acres of land and 2s. 6d. rent in Littleton to Arnold Brocas in 1394 (fn. 59) (vide Loseley), probably for the use of William Sidney, with whose half of Loseley it seems to have since descended. It is now held with Loseley.

In 1406–7 a Richard atte Park held land in Littleton. (fn. 60) A house called 'Hamptons' was sold with land in Littleton in 1630, (fn. 61) while Orange Court Farm was purchased circa 1750 by Sir William More-Molyneux of Loseley. John Orange is among Artington tenants in a 14th-century roll; and in 1464 Robert Bussebrigge left in perpetuity lands in St. Nicholas, Guildford, called Orenges to Thomas Costyn, and in 1481 Henry Costyn succeeded. (fn. 62)


LOSELEY MANOR (Losele xi cent., Lousle xiii cent., Loseley xvi cent. et seq.), which was held before the Conquest by Osmund the thegn, was assessed at 2 hides in 1086, and was at that time in possession of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, who had also obtained Osmund's manor of Eaton Mewsey in Wiltshire. Loseley was held of Earl Roger by Turold, (fn. 63) who, with his successors, continued to hold it of the various lords of Eaton Mewsey. (fn. 64) Among the under-tenants, successors of Turold, was Richard de Dol, one of the supporters of the barons in their struggle against John. (fn. 65) He sold 2 hides in Loseley to Hugh de Dol in January 1204–5. (fn. 66) Loseley descended to Robert son of Hugh de Dol, whose widow Eleanor obtained from the overlord the custody of the manor during the minority of Robert's son and heir, also named Robert. She pledged it in 1285 to Henry Gerard of Guildford for six years. (fn. 67) In 1316–17 'Elbrede atte Park de Lousle in viduitate mea' granted land in Loseley to Robert and his wife Isabella. This was the northern part of the manor, bounded by the 'via regia de Guldedone,' i.e. the Hog's Back road. (fn. 68) It shows that the whole had not been acquired in 1204–5. This Robert was commissioner of array for Surrey in 1324, (fn. 69) and made an agreement four years before his death by which his daughter Joan had for life the whole of the profits of the manor, together with Loseley Hall, while he himself only retained the solar or upper room to the east of Loseley Hall and an annual rent of 20 marks. (fn. 70) He died 22 March 1355–6, leaving as heirs the same daughter Joan de Bures, then a widow aged sixty, and John de Norton, grandson and heir of his second daughter Margaret. The solar and rent were divided between them in 1357, (fn. 71) and the custody of John de Norton's lands was granted to John de Tye. (fn. 72) After the death of Joan de Bures in March 1371–2 one moiety of Loseley descended to her son William de Bures, on whom she had entailed it, while the other moiety was inherited by John Norton, great-grandson of her sister Margaret. (fn. 73) This second moiety was committed to the custody of William de Brantingham during the minority of John Norton. (fn. 74) In 1395 John Crosse conveyed lands in Loseley to Master Arnold Brocas and others, evidently trustees. (fn. 75) One moiety of the manor, probably the Norton moiety, (fn. 76) was eventually obtained by William Sidney. He was the William Sidney to whom Margaret, then wife of Robert Danhurst, released lands in Artington in 1426–7. (fn. 77) William Sidney died 1449, and his elder son William acknowledged the right of his mother, Thomasine, to half Loseley Manor in dower in 1452, (fn. 78) and died seised of the reversion, as was said, in October 1463. (fn. 79)

This William Sidney, described as of Stoke D'Abernon and of Baynards, left two daughters, Elizabeth and Anne, subsequently married to John Hampden and William Uvedale. But he had a younger brother, also named William Sidney, of 'Kyngsham' (Sussex), whose son Humphrey successfully claimed the moiety of Loseley under the will of William Sidney, his grandfather, after the death of Thomasine his grandmother, who survived both her sons William and died in January 1498. This claim was made in 1508. There is a large parchment roll at Loseley of an Inspeximus of the Record of Proceedings before the barons of the Exchequer enrolled Michaelmas term 23 Henry VII (1508). The unsuccessful parties were the widow and daughters of William. Humphrey Sidney's attorney was Christopher More, and the suit is evidently connected with the acquisition by More of the Sidney moiety, which he afterwards held. In 1515–16 Sir Christopher More acquired the rights of John Twistleton, goldsmith, of London, probably a mortgagee; and before 1532–3 he had evidently purchased this moiety in addition to the other (vide infra), for William son of Humphrey Sidney then released all his rights to him. (fn. 80)

The other moiety was in the hands of a John Strode and Katherine his wife in 1429, and of Katherine widow of John and John her son in 1435, and of a Robert Strode in 1454–5. (fn. 81) They, in granting a lease of land bounded by William Sidney's land, spoke of 'nostra pars de manerio de Losele,' and gave the grant at Loseley. This moiety therefore may possibly have included the manor-house, and may have been the Bures moiety. Robert Strode, heir of Thomas Strode, conveyed to trustees, 8 October 1476, (fn. 82) and by this means no doubt the moiety was acquired by John Westbroke, for John Westbroke held his first court at Loseley in 1481. (fn. 83) John Westbroke was summoned to warrant the manor of Loseley to Gilbert Stoughton and Thomas Purvoche in 1500, (fn. 84) and on 31 October 1508 John Westbroke of Godalming sold to Christopher More, gentleman, all his moiety of Loseley Manor, reserving an annuity to himself and his wife Elizabeth for life. (fn. 85) Christopher More held his first court at Loseley 11 January 1508–9. (fn. 86) In 1530 he had licence to inclose 12 acres of land and a grant of free warren and free fishery within the park, of which this may have been the nucleus. (fn. 87) Sir Christopher More died 1549. His son William began to build the present house, which was completed in 1569. (fn. 88) William, who was knighted in 1576, was the most trusted agent of Elizabeth's Government in Surrey, and a special favourite of the queen. The lords lieutenant, the two Lords Howard of Effingham, and the Council, seem to have remitted all business to him. He also acquired much property in the county and elsewhere. In 1570 the Earl of Southampton was removed to his custody and remained at Loseley for three years. (fn. 89) Queen Elizabeth visited the house three times, in 1576, 1583, and again in 1591. (fn. 90) Sir William's son and heir, Sir George More, kt., who succeeded to the estate in 1600, (fn. 91) was Lieutenant of the Tower, and represented both Guildford and Surrey county in Parliament, as his father had done before him. (fn. 92) He was twice visited by James I at Loseley. (fn. 93) He died and was buried in the Loseley Chapel, St. Nicholas, Guildford, in 1632, his heir being Poynings, son of his eldest son Sir Robert More, kt., who had predeceased his father. (fn. 94) Loseley remained the property of his heirs male till 1689, when at the death of Robert More, the then holder, his sister and sole surviving heiress, Margaret wife of Sir Thomas Molyneux, (fn. 95) inherited the manor. Their eldest son, Sir William More-Molyneux, died 1760. His eldest son James had died the year before. His son Thomas More-Molyneux died unmarried in 1776, and left the property to his sisters in succession, and then to James Freeman alias Molyneux, son of Jane Freeman, who was afterwards the wife of Samuel Hill of Duke Street, gentleman. James, son of Thomas, became owner in 1802, as James MoreMolyneux, and died 1823. His son James died 1874. William More-Molyneux, son of James, (fn. 96) died 1907. The present owner is Mrs. More-Molyneux McCowan, daughter of his brother, Admiral Sir Robert MoreMolyneux.

More of Loseley. Azure a cross argent with five martlets sable thereon.

View of frankpledge was held at Loseley by the Bishop of Salisbury as lord of Godalming; (fn. 97) and thus when the Mores of Loseley obtained Godalming they also obtained the right of view of frankpledge on their manor of Loseley. There was an oratory in this manor from the end of the 14th century, when Robert de Dol had licence to hear mass there. (fn. 98) Sir George More enlarged the new house and added a chapel where he held licence for services in 1605. (fn. 99) But this extension became ruinous, and was pulled down by the late Mr. James More-Molyneux about 1835.

Loseley lies about 2 miles to the south-west of Guildford. There was certainly a moated house near this site at a much earlier date, but the present mansion was built from the ground between 1563 and 1569, by Sir William More. Sir Christopher More, who came out of Derbyshire, must have occupied from about 1515 an older house which probably stood on the site of the lawn to the south of the present house, and he obtained in 1530 a licence to empark. The 'park' still remains, and forms—with its green turf, flowergardens, and trees, gathering on the west into a great avenue which is perhaps more like a forest ride—a worthy setting for the fine old house.

As originally planned, the house of 1563 was to have occupied three sides of a square, a central gatehouse and flanking walls, with perhaps minor offices, forming the fourth side, thus leaving a great open quadrangle in the middle. In conformity with this clinging to earlier traditions in planning is the style of architecture in which the house is built, which leans to the older Gothic in all its forms, rather than to the Renaissance.

The original plan was never fully carried out, but was confined in execution to the main block of the south side of the square, thus giving the principal front to the north—a fact that, with the sombre colour of the stonework, and the stone roofs, accounts for the somewhat gloomy aspect of the house. Early in the 17th century, however, a considerable addition was made by Sir George More, the son of the founder, in the shape of a western wing, which included a gallery 121 ft. long by 18 ft. wide, and a chapel. This wing, said to have been designed by the famous John Thorpe, was entirely removed about 1835, but more recently a low range of offices has been erected in the rear of the house. Built of Bargate stone rubble, with dressings of firestone or clunch, the main front consists of a series of gables and interspaces backed by the long line of the main roof and planned with a pleasing irregularity, to which the numerous stacks of brick chimneys contribute. The pedimental doorway is of classical design and of 17th-century date, but in all other respects the front exhibits its original features, most noticeable of which are the long ranges of mullioned windows, in groups of two, three, four, and six lights. The early character of the work is evidenced in these, which have elliptical heads to the lights and a hood-mould with returned ends, such as might have been employed in work fifty years older in date. The great window of the hall bay is very tall and of three tiers of eight lights, including those in the return walls. Among the other coats and badges preserved in its glazing are the arms of the More family, with the date 1563.

The rear of the house is not so imposing. At the south-east angle is a large projecting group of gables, and a garden porch of later character occupies the centre of the recessed portion, with smaller gables to the right and dormers in the roof over.

In the interior the drawing-room is remarkable for its elaborate frieze, on which appears the rebus of the More family, a mulberry-tree intertwined with the motto, Morus tarde Moriens—Morum cito Moriturum. The room is panelled from floor to ceiling, and the latter is a fine specimen of plaster rib-work with pendants and devices framed in the geometrical patterns, among them being the cockatrice (which occurs in other rooms also), a bearing of the Mudge family, to which Sir William More's mother belonged. The great window of this room is of six lights, three on either side of a broad pier, which in the interior is finished as a carved console.

The stately mantelpiece, a masterpiece of delicate carving in hard chalk, may without exaggeration be placed among the finest things of its kind in England. The fireplace opening is spanned by a flat arch, with rusticated keystones, and flanked by caryatides and coupled Corinthian columns, which stand upon pedestals bearing swags of fruit. Above is a frieze of arabesque or strap pattern, surmounted by a modillion cornice: and the overmantel is formed of six panels enriched with scrolled cartouches, bearing coats of arms, and framed in by male and female caryatides holding up the carved frieze and cornice under the ceiling. (fn. 100)

Many of the other rooms have panelling, ceilings, and other features of interest, and the character of the house has been admirably kept up by the successive generations of its owners.

In some of the upper rooms are fine tapestries, including a good specimen of the Mortlake Tapestry. There was at one time a collection of armour and weapons which were mostly exhibited in the great hall, but these have been removed, and their place is now taken by pictures, many of which are of great interest, such as those of James I and Anne of Denmark, painted in celebration of their visit to Sir George More in 1603; and the large painting of Sir William More-Molyneux with his wife Cassandra and all their children. Besides these there are in other parts of the house many portraits of the More and Molyneux families; and, among royal and eminent personages, Edward VI, presented by Henry VIII to Sir Christopher More; Anne Boleyn; Queen Elizabeth, presented by herself to Sir William More; and Sir Thomas More, who was, however, no connexion of this More family.

The finest collection of manuscripts of family, local, and public interest, which is preserved in any private house in Surrey, is at Loseley. Sir Christopher, Sir William, and Sir George More, the three generations of owners whose lives covered the time from the beginning of the 16th century till the early part of the reign of Charles I, were continually employed in the public service. The first was King's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, Sheriff and member for the county; Sir William was at different times or simultaneously Sheriff, Deputy-Lieutenant, and member for the county or for Guildford, and Vice-Admiral of Sussex; Sir George was Sheriff, Deputy-Lieutenant, member of Parliament, and also Lieutenant of the Tower, Chancellor of the Garter, and Treasurer to the Prince of Wales; Sir William was also executor to Sir Thomas Cawarden, who was Master of the Revels from Henry VIII to the first year of Elizabeth, and kept his papers. They were also stewards of manors, constables of the castle, and keepers of the chase at Farnham, and all of them active justices of the peace. In these various capacities they received a vast quantity of official correspondence, besides private letters from many persons of importance. The bulk of these letters is preserved in twelve volumes, but over and above there is a great mass of letters, accounts, memoranda, Hundred Rolls and Court Rolls of Godalming Hundred and of many manors, deeds and printed pamphlets. The greater number belong to the Tudor reigns and the time of James I, but they extend earlier and later. Among them are letters and papers of Dr. John Donne (1573–1631), poet and Dean of St. Paul's, who was imprisoned in the Marshalsea for clandestinely marrying Anne daughter of Sir George More. Later papers of much interest are memorials of a tour in Spain in the 18th century. Mr. A. J. Kempe printed a small selection of papers in extenso in 1835. (fn. 101) William Bray, the historian of Surrey, had previously had access to the papers. They have been catalogued, very incompletely, for the Historical MSS. Commission. (fn. 102) Recently the whole has been deposited on loan at the Public Record Office. The present writer acknowledges with gratitude the kindness of the owner, who has given him free access to such a collection, interesting to the historian generally and invaluable to the historian of Surrey in particular. It is not too much to say that the history of the administration of a county under Elizabeth could be compiled from these sources alone.


PICCARDS MANOR seems to have formed a part of Stephen de Turnham's manor of Artington, for it appears in 1279 in the possession of Joan wife of William Branche and descendant of Clemency, one of Stephen de Turnham's daughters. (fn. 103) Joan and William were granted free warren in Artington by Henry III. (fn. 104) It passed with their manor of Peper Harow to Henry of Guildford, who died seised of land and rent in Artington together with pleas of court there early in the 14th century. (fn. 105) His kinsman and heir, John son of Gilbert the Marshal of Guildford, paid relief for the manor in 1319–20 (fn. 106) and granted it to John Piccard of Guildford and his wife Margaret in 1323. (fn. 107) It is evidently from this family that the manor obtained its name of Piccards. In 1350 John son of John Piccard and his mother Margaret conveyed all their lands in Artington to Master Bernard Brocas, clerk, in exchange for lands called Heysull in Chiddingfold. (fn. 108) From this date Piccards descended with Peper Harow (q.v.) till the death of Sir Richard Pexall, c. 1571. (fn. 109) He bequeathed it to Pexall Brocas the elder son of his daughter Anne, who had married Bernard Brocas of Horton. (fn. 110) In 1586 Pexall Brocas sold ten-twelfths of the manor to Sir William More of Loseley, (fn. 111) who evidently bought up the remaining two-twelfths, for he died seised of the whole in July 1600. (fn. 112) Since then the descent of the manor has been coincident with that of Loseley (q.v.).


For an account of the church of ST. NICHOLAS, see the history of Guildford, within the boundaries of which it is situated.

The ruins of ST. CATHERINE'S CHAPEL stand on St. Catherine's or Drake Hill, (fn. 113) about a mile south of Guildford Bridge. The building was a plain parallelogram of 45 ft. 6 in. by 20 ft. 6 in., inside measurement. The walls are mainly of sandstone, 3 ft. thick, the windows, doors, and buttresses faced with chalk. At the north-west corner is a turret, with vice, leading perhaps to a priest's room, as the top of the turret does not seem like a belfry. The buttresses between the three windows on each side and at the angles ran up into pinnacles. There were large east and west windows, and west and also north and south doors. The side windows over the north and south doors were at some period converted into doorways, approached by outside steps and probably connected by a gallery or bridge across the chapel. The northern door opened inwards, the southern outwards. The only possible use was to allow a great number of people to pass through the chapel, by the upper and lower doors simultaneously, to venerate relics. The present building is mainly early 14th-century. In the Pipe Roll 14 Henry III (1230) 50s. was allowed to the sheriff for his disbursement of so much to the priest of St. Catherine's Chapel, by which it would seem that the chapel, in the old royal manor of Godalming, was still in the king's hands. The subordinate manor of Artington was then held by the co-heiresses of Stephen Turnham.

In 1317 Richard de Wauncey, rector of St. Nicholas, had rebuilt the chapel and received licence for its consecration after rebuilding. (fn. 114) He had bought it and the neighbouring ground from the holders of the manor of Artington before 1301. Andrew Braboeuf granted by charter to Richard de Wauncey, rector of St. Nicholas, and his successors, all his rights on Drake Hill and in the chapel of St. Catherine. (fn. 115) But in 1317 the king appointed Robert de Kyrkeby to the chapel of Artington, belonging to the king because the lands of John the Marshal were in the king's hands. The rector's grant had been annulled, and in 1318 the chapel was granted to Richard le Constable, chaplain to the king and rector of St. Mary's, Guildford. (fn. 116) But in 1328 Bernard Brocas, rector of St. Nicholas, received a grant of the chapel, (fn. 117) and the apparently delayed consecration was carried out (fn. 118) in spite of the remonstrance of Constable. The chapel was valuable because attached to it was the right of holding a fair on St. Matthew's Day, and receiving the tolls. The lord of the manor of Godalming, the Bishop of Salisbury, had, however, certain dues from the fair. In the Godalming Hundred Rolls (fn. 119) the steward accounted to the lord for 3s. 4d., perquisites from the fair pro agro, picagio, stallagio, et diversis occupationibus. On 22 September 1453 the tithing-man of Artington presented one absentee and nine persons for breaking the assize of ale at the fair. This probably comprised all the inhabitants. At least a century later there were only eleven men, for in 1546 the court presented that all the inhabitants of Artington were sellers of beer at the time of the fair, and paid according to ancient custom 1d. each, hence the sum of 11d. was due, and paid. At this time the manor was in the king's hands, and these dues were going to him and not to the rector of St. Nicholas. The episcopal registers are silent as to appointments to the chaplaincy, and it may be that the rectors failed to provide payment for a separate priest. The chapel itself therefore may have become disused. It does not appear among the chapels or chantries suppressed under Edward VI. In 1653 John Manship, presented to St. Nicholas by the Parliament, sold his rights in the fair to Mr. Wight, lord of the manor of Braboeuf; and Sir William More, lord of the manor of Godalming, failed to recover the tolls in a Chancery suit. (fn. 120) Mr. Wight's representatives have since enjoyed the tolls of the fair, which are now insignificant. At the change of style it was brought on to 2 October. Within the memory of the last generation universal selling of beer by the inhabitants continued, and the fair was of real commercial importance. Turner drew the chapel in Liber Studiorum. The old Portsmouth road went over the hill, near the chapel, and a cross-way led to the ferry, which is probably on the site of the ford for the Pilgrims' way. The fair was at the crossways.


Caleb Lovejoy in 1677 left property in Southwark for the teaching and apprenticing of boys in the parish, the preaching of a sermon, and the providing of a dinner, on the anniversary of his death. The surplus was to go to the foundation of almshouses for poor women. In fact the property was insufficient, and the almshouses were not built till 1841. They hold four women. They are nearly on the site of the house of Caleb Lovejoy's father, which can be fixed from an agreement recorded in the Parish Register.

George Benbrick in 1682 gave sums charged on land at Alton and at Shalford for poor freemen (of the borough) or their widows residing in St. Nicholas.


  • 1. Long poles used to be put through the hind wheels of the coaches coming down this hill.
  • 2. Close, 9 Hen. III, m. 6.
  • 3. Pat. 27 Edw. I, m. 4.
  • 4. Pat. 43 Edw. III, pt. i, m. 33.
  • 5. Pat. 10 Hen. IV, pt. ii, m. 13.
  • 6. Pat. 22 Hen. VI, pt. ii, m. 2.
  • 7. Exch. Accts. bdle. 516, no. 11.
  • 8. Pat. 2 Edw. IV, pt. ii, m. 14.
  • 9. Pat. 15 Edw. IV, pt. ii, m. 4.
  • 10. Pat. 1 Ric. III, pt. iv, m. 12.
  • 11. MS. of Mr. Anstis, quoted by Manning and Bray, Hist. of Surr. i, 514.
  • 12. Mr. Anstis' MS., Manning and Bray Surr. i, 25.
  • 13. Chart. of the school.
  • 14. Loseley MSS. passim.
  • 15. Norden's Surv. 1606; Harl. MSS. 3749.
  • 16. Cart. Chas. I, R. 8, m. 2.
  • 17. Pipe R. 17 Hen. II (Pipe R. Soc.), 144 et seq.
  • 18. Testa de Nevill (Rec. Com.), 225. It seems probable therefore that Master David only had a life interest in Artington, and that after his death Stephen de Turnham held directly of the king, for in later confirmations Stephen is stated to have had it of the gift of Henry II.
  • 19. Pipe R. 3 Ric. I, m. 3; Rot. Cart. (Rec. Com.), 160.
  • 20. Maitland, Bracton's Note Bk. 1410; Excerpta e Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), ii, 25. There was apparently another daughter Clemency, see Piccard's Manor.
  • 21. Vide infra.
  • 22. Feet of F. Surr. 8 Ric. II, 73, 75.
  • 23. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vii, App. pt. i, 599.
  • 24. Chan. Inq. p.m. 19 Hen. VI, no. 5.
  • 25. Ibid. (Ser. 2), iv, 14.
  • 26. Cal. Chart. R. (Rec. Com.), i, 366. It seems probable that he already possessed a tenement called Braboeuf in Artington. Indeed, in 1496 it was declared that 'the manor of Braboeuf and the manor of Artington are not one, nor was any part of it ever part of Artington.' Memo. R. Exch. L.T.R. Trin. 11 Hen. VII, m. xvi. It seems, however, that the lords of Braboeuf also possessed a part of the original manor of Artington.
  • 27. Add. Chart. 24582, 24583, 24584.
  • 28. Cal. Chart. R. (Rec. Com.), i, 456.
  • 29. Chan. Inq. p.m. 22 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 20.
  • 30. Montagu Burrows, The Family of Brocas, 430–2.
  • 31. Chan. Inq. p.m. 35 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 21.
  • 32. Memo. R. (Exch. L.T.R.), Trin. 11 Hen. VII, m. 16, 'Recorda'; Feet of F. Surr. 42 Edw. III, 1; 10 Ric. II, 23.
  • 33. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), lxxxiii 20.
  • 34. Ibid. xxv, 48.
  • 35. Ibid. lxxii, 96.
  • 36. Ibid. cxiii, 46.
  • 37. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 1 Eliz.
  • 38. Parish Reg. of St. Nicholas, Guildford.
  • 39. Probably the chapel of the Blessed Virgin, with which the Abbess Euphemia inclosed a large space 'which was adorned on the north side with pleasant vines and trees.' V.C.H. Hants, ii, 133. Egerton MS. 2104 (A), no. 254.
  • 40. Feet of F. Surr. 26 Hen. III, 273, 274, 279.
  • 41. Misc. Bks. Aug. Off. ccccxiv, 17–21.
  • 42. Enr. of Leases (Aug. Off.), 9 Eliz. R. 4, no. 3.
  • 43. Partic. for Leases, Surr. 37 Eliz. R. 2, no. 23.
  • 44. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccxxxiv, 60. See under Burpham in Worplesdon.
  • 45. Possibly the house now called the Priory, some of which is very old.
  • 46. Exch. Spec. Com. 6 Chas. I, no. 5666; 5 Chas. I, no. 5665; Exch. Dep. Mich. 4 Chas. I, 21.
  • 47. V.C.H. Surr. i, 328b.
  • 48. Feet of F. Surr. 3 Hen. III, 20.
  • 49. Chart. R. 13 Edw. I, m. 4.
  • 50. Cal. Close, 1288–96, p. 339.
  • 51. Ibid. 444.
  • 52. Cal. Pat. 1301–7, pp. 272, 459.
  • 53. Chan. Inq. p.m. 32 Edw. I, no. 47.
  • 54. Ibid.
  • 55. Pipe R. 17 Edw. II, 'De Ob. Suss.'
  • 56. D. of 8 Hen. IV, referred to below.
  • 57. V.C.H. Surr. ii, 6.
  • 58. Feet of F. Surr. 18 Edw. II, 83.
  • 59. Ibid. 18 Ric. II, 55.
  • 60. D. at Loseley—compare 'Elbrede atte Park de Lousle,' below.
  • 61. Com. Pleas D. Enr. East. 6 Chas. I, m. 17.
  • 62. D. at Loseley.
  • 63. V.C.H. Surr. i, 314a.
  • 64. De Banco R. 60, m. 83; Chan. Inq. p.m. 30 Edw. III, 45; ibid. 8 Edw. II, 68.
  • 65. Rot. Lit. Claus. i, 285, 307.
  • 66. Feet of F. Surr. 6 John, file 3, no. 17.
  • 67. Wrottesley, Pedigrees from the Plea R. 433; De Banco R. 60, m. 83.
  • 68. D. at Loseley.
  • 69. Parl. Writs (Rec. Com.), ii (2), 666, (21).
  • 70. Chan. Inq. p.m. 30 Edw. III, no. 45.
  • 71. Abbrev. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com.), ii, 241.
  • 72. Ibid. ii, 252.
  • 73. Chan. Inq. p.m. 45 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 4.
  • 74. Fine R. 1 Ric. II, pt. i, m. 21.
  • 75. Close, 19 Ric. II, m. 29 d.
  • 76. Vide infra.
  • 77. Feet of F. Surr. 5 Hen. VI, 20. A year later William Sidney and John Strode held one fee in Loseley; Lay Subs. R. bdle. 184, no. 75.
  • 78. Harl. Chart. 56, B. 25; and Loseley R. below.
  • 79. Exch. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 1), file 1805, no. 2.
  • 80. Copy of Inq. p.m. and deeds at Loseley.
  • 81. Deeds at Loseley.
  • 82. Ibid.
  • 83. Fragment of roll there.
  • 84. Feet of F. Surr. Trin. 15 Hen. VII, 13; De Banco R. 15 Hen. VII, m. 21.
  • 85. Add. Chart. 13557. More was, as we have seen, simultaneously acquiring the Sidney moiety.
  • 86. Loseley MSS.
  • 87. Pat. 22 Hen. VIII, pt. ii, m. 3. The present park is much more than 12 acres.
  • 88. See Arcb. xxxvi, 294, where there is printed an account of the expenses of building Loseley House, and also an inventory of the goods of William More in 1556.
  • 89. Kempe, Loseley MSS. 229 et seq.
  • 90. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vii, App. 629, 638, 649.
  • 91. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cclxiv, 179.
  • 92. Return of Members of Parl. pt. i.
  • 93. Dict. Nat. Biog. xxxviii, 414.
  • 94. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccccxxxvii, 106.
  • 95. Inscription in church of St. Nicholas, Guildford.
  • 96. a The writer desires to acknowledge his obligations to this gentleman for the free use of his MSS.
  • 97. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vii, App. 599, 600, &c.
  • 98. Egerton MS. 2033, fol. 53b.
  • 99. Licence at Loseley.
  • 100. a The effect of this chimneypiece and of the room generally is admirably rendered in Plate LXXI of Nash's Mansions of Engl. in the Olden Times. It is a point in common between Loseley and Wakehurst in Sussex that the latter also boasts a chalk mantelpiece. A good example of a small chalk chimneypiece is preserved in the old house which now forms the museum of the Surrey Archaeological Society in Guildford. The panels in the great hall bear the badges of Henry VIII and Catherine Parr, and are said to have been brought from Nonsuch Palace.
  • 101. Kempe, Loseley MSS.
  • 102. a Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vii.
  • 103. See below under Peper Harow. It is also called 'one quarter of Artington manor.'
  • 104. Plac. de Quo War. (Rec. Com.), 741.
  • 105. Chan. Inq. p.m. 6 Edw. II, no. 57.
  • 106. Pipe R. 13 Edw. II. 'Sussex Oblata.'
  • 107. Cal. Pat. 1321–4, p. 295.
  • 108. Inq. a.q.d. ccxcviii, 7; Montagu Burrows, Hist. of Family of Brocas, 432,434.
  • 109. The records of two leases, one in 1500, the other in 1503, are among the deeds of the Brocas family; ibid. 436.
  • 110. P.C.C. Will 1571, 46 Holney.
  • 111. Close, 28 Eliz. pt. xviii.
  • 112. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cclxiv, 179.
  • 113. Winton Epis. Reg. Stratford, fol. 43b.
  • 114. Winton Epis. Reg. Sandal, pt. 2, fol. 12b.
  • 115. Charter among Loseley MSS.
  • 116. Chart. 18 Edw. II; cf. Parl. R. (Rec. Com.), ii, 378.
  • 117. Pat. 2 Edw. III, pt. ii, m. 9.
  • 118. Winton Epis. Reg. Stratford, fol. 43b.
  • 119. Loseley MSS. Godalming Hundred Court, 21 Sept. 1377.
  • 120. The Chancery reference cannot be found; the fact is alluded to in Loseley letters, and was vouched for by Manning and Bray. A copy of the pleadings is at Loseley.