A HISTORY OF SURREY 



Edward Tornecroste [Thorncroft] was worth 

 100 shillings ; when he received it, 60 shil- 

 lings ; now 1 10 shillings. Two hides always 

 (were worth) 30 shillings. 1 Coleman's hide 

 (was worth) 10 shillings. 



In this Hundred the Abbot of Westminster 

 holds 2 hides, but they are appraised in another 

 Hundred.* 



In MIDKHAM [ ? ] there lies i hide 



which Seman held of king Edward, and now 

 holds of king William. He has in demesne 

 there a plough, and 3 bordars, and half an 

 acre of meadow. It ,is, and was, worth 2O 

 shillings. 



In the same place Godwin holds a virgate 

 of king William. The same held it of king 

 Edward. It is worth 30 pence by the year. 



In the same Hundred, William son of 

 Ansculf holds 2 hides, but they are appraised 

 in another Hundred.* 



p. 35, b. ii. 



IN FINGEHAM [EFFINGHAM] HUNDRED 



Oswold* holds of Richard EPINGEHAM 

 [Effingham], Azor* held it of king Edward. 

 It was then assessed for 6 hides, now for 2^ 

 hides. With these 6 hides Oswold holds I 

 hide and I virgate of land which a free .man 

 held under king Edward, but for a certain 

 need of his he sold it to Azor in the time of 

 king William. The land is for 5 ploughs 

 altogether. In demesne there are 2 ploughs ; 

 and (there are) 6 villeins and 5 bordars with 

 2 ploughs. There are 6 serfs ; and 4 acres 

 of meadow ; and wood worth 5 hogs. From 

 the herbage, 3 hogs. In the time of king 

 Edward it was worth 100 shillings, and 

 afterwards 4 pounds and 10 shillings ; now 6 

 pounds. 



1 These are the 2 hides (and i virgate) 

 which Mervin, Alric and Aimer had held 

 (J. H. R.). 



' These 2 hides do not appear under the 

 holding of the church of Westminster. At 

 the Dissolution Westminster held one quarter 

 of the manor of Hedley, which may repre- 

 sent these hides (See also here p. 293 above). 



8 See under Milton, 36, a. i. 



4 An Azor, dead by 1086, kept his land 

 from the time of king Edward. Oswold, 

 an Englishman, not only kept most of his, 

 but acquired more. See 36, b. ii., under 

 Wotton ; and above it, for an Englishman 

 putting his land under Oswold's protection 

 from the time that king William came into 

 England. Oswold was a prudent man rather 

 than a patriot. Oswold also held at Effing- 

 ham under Chertsey. 



IN WOCHINGES [WOKING] HUNDRED 



Richard himself holds BOCHEHAM [Ock- 

 ham] B in demesne. JElmar held it of king 

 Edward. It was then assessed for 9 hides ; 

 now for i hides. The land is for 4 ploughs. 

 In demesne there is I plough ; and (there 

 are) 6 villeins and 2 bordars with 2 ploughs. 

 There is a church ; and 3 serfs ; and 2 

 fisheries worth 10 pence ; and 2 acres of 

 meadow. Wood worth 60 hogs. It is worth, 

 and was always worth, 100 shillings. 



Ralph holds of Richard HOCLEI [Ockley]. 6 

 Almar held it of king Edward. Then, and 

 now, it (was and) is assessed for i hide. The 

 land is for 4 ploughs. In demesne there is 



1 ; and (there are) 9 villeins and 3 bordars 

 with 4 ploughs. Wood worth 20 hogs ; and 



2 serfs. In the time of king Edward it was 

 worth 70 shillings, and afterwards, and now, 

 the like. 



In this manor Richard himself holds half a 

 hide. 7 Alwin held it in the time of king 

 Edward, and could put it under what lord he 

 pleased (potuit cum ea ire quo voluit). Then 

 it was assessed for half a hide ; now for nothing. 

 It is appraised in Hoclei [Ockley]. 



5 Ockham, pretty certainly, for it was De 

 Clare land later. If the spelling be correct, it 

 disposes of the alleged Celtic derivation of 

 Ockham. 



6 There is no reasonable doubt that this 

 is Ockley, though Ockley is in Wotton 

 Hundred. The clerk wrote In TVodetone 

 Hundreds below the entry by mistake, or 

 rather omitted it above. Ockley was a De 

 Clare manor ; they had a small castle there. 

 There is an outlying piece of 23 acres be- 

 longing to Ockham parish and manor, and to 

 Woking Hundred, adjacent to Ockley parish. 

 Possibly Ockley may for some reason have 

 been counted with it in Woking Hundred 

 formerly. 



This manor, with, perhaps, Arseste below, 

 are the only two named in Surrey upon the 

 Wealden clay ; they were accessible from 

 the north by the Roman Stone Street, which 

 runs through them. If Horley is the name- 

 less manor of Chertsey, it adds another on the 

 clay, and Gosterwood adjacent to Ockley is 

 another, if that is Richard's holding in Wot- 

 ton. See note p. 328. 



7 Dimidia hida, in the original, but the 

 accusative must have been meant. The care- 

 lessness of the clerk bears out the probability 

 of the mistake noticed above. This may be 

 Gosterwood, unless that is the land mentioned 

 under Wotton. See note on Wotton, p. 328. 



320 



