TITCHFIELD HUNDRED 



TITCHFIELD 



holding it by gift of his father-in-law, Hugh de 

 St. Martin. 8 * It then consisted 'of a hall built 

 with tiles, a grange and ox-house built with straw 

 ... 90 acres of arable land ... 20 acres of 

 pasture worth an acre per annum id,, 4 acres of 

 meadow worth an acre per annum 21., one water 

 mill worth per annum IO/., 3 acres of large wood 

 and 3 acres of underwood worth an acre per 

 annum 6J., and eight customary tenants who paid 

 rent per annum z is. gd.' a7 From William it passed 

 to his son John, whose daughter Mary granted it in 

 1 338 to the abbot and convent of Titchfield, 88 in whose 

 possession it remained until the Dissolution, when it 

 passed with the other Titchfield property to Thomas 

 Wriothesley, earl of Southampton, and followed the 

 descent of Titchfield (q.v.). 



The second manor in Funtley was held at the time 

 of Edward the Confessor by a certain Turi under 

 Earl Godwin. In 1086 it was in the possession of 

 Ranulf Flamme, 89 and being confiscated with the rest 

 of his estates in noo, passed into the king's hands, 90 

 and was granted some time prior to the year 1241 to 

 the Arundel family, 91 in whose possession it remained 

 until 1615," after which the rights of overlordship 

 probably lapsed. 



Of the subtenants Hugh de Hoyvill was holding 

 one-fourth of a fee in Funtley in 1241, which he had 

 inherited from Richard de Hoyvill his father, which 

 passed to Philip de Hoyvill, probably his son, who in 

 1294 was granted free warren in his demesne lands 

 there. 93 Seventy years later William de Hoyvill, prob- 

 ably a grandson, was assessed in the Feudal Aids as part 

 owner of the vill. 9 * In 1346 it was held by William 

 de Hoyvill, 94 probably son of the former one, but be- 

 fore 1428 it had passed to the Uvedale family, John 

 Uvedale being then in possession. 98 It then followed 

 the descent of Wickham until 1721, when it was 

 held by Sir Richard Corbett, from whom it was 

 purchased by Jonathan Rashleigh, M.P. for Fowey, 

 Cornwall, in 1724." It apparently passed out of the 

 hands of the Rashleigh family at the end of the eigh- 

 teenth century, and since then the property appears 

 to have been broken up. 98 



At the time of the Domesday Survey HOOK 

 (Houch, xi cent. ; Hoke, xiii cent. ; Houke, xiv cent. ; 

 Hooke, xv cent, onwards) was held by Hugh de 

 Port, 99 and the overlordship probably followed the 

 descent of the St. John barony (see Wickham), 

 though it is difficult to be certain of this after the 

 fourteenth century. 100 In 1086 one German was 

 holding Hook of Hugh de Port, but for the next two 

 centuries its history is unknown. At the beginning 

 of the fourteenth century the vill of Hook was held 

 jointly by Aymer de Valence, Roger Mortimer, John 



Pageham, and Richard of Winchester, 101 but of these 

 holdings the two former only appear to have had any 

 manorial history. On the death of Aymer de 

 Valence without issue in 1324,'* his property in 

 Hook, afterwards known as Hook Valence, probably 

 passed to John de Hastings, one of his heirs, and 

 through him in a direct line to John earl of Pem- 

 broke, whose widow Philippa, daughter of Edward 

 Mortimer, was holding it in 1 389. 103 She married as 

 her third husband, between 1393 and 1400, Thomas 

 Poynings lord St. John of Basing 104 a connexion 

 which, assuming that the St. Johns were still the 

 overlords of Hook, might explain the possession of 

 Hook by the Wests, also connexions of the Mor- 

 timers in the sixteenth century. In 1488 Elizabeth 

 Uvedale was holding 16 messuages and 132 acres of 

 land in Hook of Thomas West, Lord De La Warr, 104 

 and this property was held until his death in 1501 

 by her son Robert. 106 Sixty years later Thomas 

 West sold the manor of Hook Valence to Sir Richard 

 Lyster, son-in-law of Thomas Wriothesley, 107 and as 

 the latter died possessed of the manor in 1 5 Jo, 108 it 

 probably passed to him by some family settlement. 

 From this date until 1762 it follows the descent of 

 Swanwick (q.v.). 



The manor of HOOK MORTIMER held by 

 Robert Mortimer in 1316 probably escheated to the 

 king on his attainder in 1330, but apparently was 

 restored with the earldom to 

 Roger his grandson in 1355, 

 as Roger's son Edmund was 

 holding rents in Hook Mor- 

 timer in 1381, 'from divers 

 tenants there who hold ac- 

 cording to the custom of the 

 manor, as of the ancient de- 

 mesne of the crown.' 109 Ed- 

 mund Mortimer died without 

 issue in 1425, and the Mor- 

 timer estates went to his ne- 

 phew Richard duke of York, 110 

 whose eldest son Edward after- 

 wards became Edward IV, and 

 in this way the estate again came 

 into the king's hands. In I 540 Henry VIII granted 

 Hook Mortimer to Anne of Cleves," 1 and in the 

 following year to Queen Catherine as her jointure ;"* 

 in 1 543 it was leased for thirty years to Edmund 

 Clerke, 111 and if, as seems probable, 1 " the manor of 

 East Hook can be identified with Hook Mortimer, 

 it passed before 155 to Thomas Wriothesley earl 

 of Southampton, who also possessed the manor 

 of Hook Valence. 115 From this date the descent 

 of both is identical with that of Titchfield until 



MORTIMIR. Barry 

 azure and or a chief or 

 with ftuo pales azure be- 

 tween Fwo gyrons azure 

 therein and a scutcheon 

 argent over alt- 



De Bane. R. Mich. 10 Edw. Ill, 

 m. 404. d. 



87 Chan. Inq. p.m. 33 Edw. I, No. 43. 



88 Close, 3 Edw. Ill, m. 12. 



89 V.C.H. Hants, i, 50217. 



90 Diet. Nat. Biog. xix, 237. 



91 Testa de Ne-vill (Rcc. Com.), 231. 

 9a W. and L. Inq. p.m. 14 Jas. I 



(Ser. 2), bdle. 24, No. 123. 



93 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. i), 3 5 Hen. Ill, 

 No. 54 ; Chart. R. 1257-1310, p. 436. 



94 Feud. Aids, ii, 308. 

 Ibid. 336. 



Ibid. 356. 



9 ? Recov. R. Trin. 12 Geo. Ill, 

 No. 339. 



98 Private information. 



99 V.C.H. Hants, i, 480*. 



100 Chan. Inq. p.m. 21 Edw. Ill, 

 No. 57 ; V.C.H. Hants, \, 480*. At the 

 end of the thirteenth century the prior of 

 Boxgrove was holding J of one knight's 

 fee of ancient feoffment of Robert de 

 St. John. Tata de Nevill (Rec. Com.), 

 230. 



101 Feud. Aid,, ii, 308. 



1M Chan. Inq. p.m. 17 Edw. Ill, 

 No. 75. 



03 Ibid. 2 Hen. IV, No. 54. 

 104 Dugdale, Baronage, Ii, 137. 

 <* Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), iv, No. 16. 



106 Ibid, xv (2nd Nos.), No. 7. 



10 7 Feet of F. Southants, Mich. I 

 Edw. VI. 



227 



108 W. and L. Inq. 4 Edw. VI (Ser. z), 

 bdle. 5, No. 103. 



109 Chan. Inq. p.m. 5 Ric. II, No. 43. 



110 Rot. Part, iv, 397 ; Close, ii Hen. 

 VI, m. 19. 



111 L and P. Hen. fill, xv, 144 (2). 

 lla Ibid, xvi, 503 (25). 



118 Pat. 5 & 6 Phil, and Mary, pt. 3, 

 m. 40. 



114 Thomas Wriothesley died seised of 

 East Hook and Hook Valence in 1550, 

 while his widow Jane countess of South- 

 ampton possessed Hook Mortimer and 

 Hook Valence in 1553, no mention 

 being made of East Hook. 



116 W. and L. Inq. p.m. 4 Edw. VI 

 (Ser. 2), bdle. 5, No. 103. 



