A HISTORY OF SURREY 



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. 48 In 1285 Nicholas le Gras, who was 

 Sheriffof Surrey, obtained a grant of free warren in his 

 demesne lands of Littleton and Arlington/ 9 He died 

 before December I293, 60 and seems to have been 

 succeeded by Ralph le Gras, 6 ' 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. 6 * His heir was his brother 

 Nicholas, aged twenty-two. 63 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. 64 Nicholas le 

 Gras, brother to Roger, was in possession of it in 

 1323-4." The manor included much more than the 

 present hamlet and ran up to the road (via regia) on 

 the Hog's Back. 66 It is interesting to see that these 

 old manors, Loseley and Littleton, were, like the old 

 parishes generally, 67 bounded by the ridge of the chalk 

 downs. John le Em of Compton had lands and rent 

 there in I325, 68 and William Shepherd and his wife 

 Margaret sold 60 acres of land and 21. 6J. rent in 

 Littleton to Arnold Brocas in 1394 s9 (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 Little- 

 ton. 60 A house called ' Hamptons ' was sold with 

 land in Littleton in l63o, 61 while Orange Court 

 Farm was purchased circa 1750 by Sir William 

 More-Molyneux of Loseley. John Orange is among 

 Arlington tenants in a I4th-cenlury 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." 



LOSELET MANOR (Losele xi cent., Lousle 

 xiii cenl., Loseley xvi cenl. et seq.), which was held 

 before the Conquest by Osmund the ihegn, 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, 63 who, with his successors, continued to hold 

 it of the various lords of Eaton Mewsey. 64 Among 

 the under-tenants, successors of Turold, was Richard 

 de Dol, one of the supporters of the barons in their 

 struggle against John. 66 He sold 2 hides in Loseley 

 to Hugh de Dol in January 1 2 04- 5. w 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. 6 ' 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. 68 It shows that the whole had not 

 been acquired in 1204-5. This Robert was com- 

 missioner of array for Surrey in 1 3 24, 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.'* 

 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," and the custody of John de 

 Norton's lands was granted to John de Tye." 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." This second moiety was 

 committed to the custody of William de Brantingham 

 during the minority of John Norton." In 1395 

 John Crosse conveyed lands in Loseley to Master 

 Arnold Brocas and others, evidently trustees. 76 One 

 moiety of the manor, probably the Norton moiety, 7 * 

 was eventually obtained by William Sidney. He 

 was the William Sidney to whom Margaret, then 

 wife of Robert Danhurst, released lands in Arlington 

 in 1426-7." William Sidney died 1449, and his 

 elder son William acknowledged the right of his 

 mother, Thornasine, to half Loseley Manor in dower 

 in I452, 78 and died seised of the reversion, as was 

 said, in October 1463. 



This William Sidney, described as of Stoke D'Aber- 

 non 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 Inspeximut of the Record of Proceedings before the 

 barons of the Exchequer enrolled Michaelmas term 

 23 Henry VII (i 508). 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 



Feet of F. Surr. 3 Hen. Ill, 20. 



Chart. R. 1 3 Edw. I, m. 4. 



* Cal. Clou, 1288-96, p. 339. 



" Ibid. 444. 



"Cal. Pat. 1301-7, pp. 272,459. 



68 Chan. Inq. p.m. 32 Edw. I, no. 



47- 



" Ibid. 



ss Pipe R. 17 Edw. II, ' De Ob. Suss.' 



68 D. of 8 Hen. IV, referred to be- 

 low. 



V.C.H. Surr. ii, 6. 



M Feet of F. Surr. 18 Edw. II, 83. 



"Ibid. 1 8 Ric. II, 55. 



60 D. at Loseley compare 'Elbrede atte 

 Park de Lousle,' below. 



61 Com. Pleas D. Enr. East. 6 Chai. I, 

 m. 17. 



ra D. at Loseley. 



63 V.C.H. Surr. i, 314*. 



64 De Banco R. 60, m. 83 ; Chan. Inq. 

 p.m. 30 Edw. Ill, 45 ; ibid. 8 Edw. II, 

 68. 



85 Rot. Lit. Claui. i, 285, 307. 



66 Feet of F. Surr. 6 John, file 3, 

 no. 17. 



" Wrottesley, Ptdigreet from tht Plea 

 R. 433 ; De Banco R. 60, m. 83. 



68 D. at Loseley. 



69 Par!. Jfrit, (Rec. Com.), ii (2), 666, 

 (21). 



70 Chan. Inq. p.m. 30 Edw. Ill, no. 45. 



" Abbrev. Rot, Orig. (Re;. Com.}, ii, 

 241. 



7" Ibid, ii, 252. 



" Chan. Inq. p.m. 45 Edw. Ill (ist 

 nos.), no. 4. 



7* Fine R. I Ric. II, pt. i, m. 21. 



7 Close, 19 Ric. II, m. 29 d. 



Vide infra. 



T> 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. 



"> Harl. Chart. 56, B. 25 ; and Loseley 

 R. below. 



" Exch. Inq. p.m. (Ser. i), file 1805, 

 no. 2. 



