WOTTON HUNDRED 



This Joan became the ancestress of the Earls of 

 Derby by her marriage with Sir Thomas Stanley." 



MOWBRAY, Duke of 

 Norfolk. England with 

 a Intel argent. 



STANLEY, Earl of 

 Derby. Argent a bend 

 azure with three hart? 

 headi caboued or there* 

 on. 



The second co-heir of Thomas, Earl of Arundel, 

 was Joan Beauchamp, Lady Abergavenny ; her share 

 descended to her granddaughter Elizabeth, afterwards 

 the wife of George Nevill, who thus gained the lands 

 and title of Abergavenny. Margaret, wife of Sir 

 Roland Lenthale, was the third heir, but her claim to 

 part of the inheritance lapsed at the death of her son 

 Edmund, who died without issue IS before July 1 447. 



The history of the manor is obscure, even with the 

 aid of the Court Rolls placed at the service of in- 

 vestigators by the courtesy of successive Dukes of 

 Norfolk. For the rolls are far from continuous, and 

 generally lack the name of the lord or lords whose 

 courts are held. It is obvious, however, that on the 

 death of Thomas, Earl of Arundel,in 1415, his widow, 

 Beatrix of Portugal, held the manor as dower. 3 " The 

 courts were held for a Domlna (feminine) from 1413 

 to 1431, when there is a break of five years. In 1435 

 and 1438 Dominus, in the masculine singular is used, 

 probably Roland Lenthale, for his son Edmund. In 

 1 444 Domini begins, the Bishop of Bath and Wells 

 and others," feoffees of Edmund Lenthale." This 

 trust seems to have expired between 26 March 

 1450 and 21 July 1450, for Domini is used in the 

 former, Dominus in the latter. The singular is used 

 till 15 February 1451, after which the manor was 

 divided, courts being henceforth held for Domini 

 when the number is distinguished at all. In 1528 

 the question was raised in the court baron (17 Sep- 

 tember 1528) 'whether Edmund Lenthale deceased 

 was while alive sole holder of the manor of Dorking 

 or holder with others.' Unfortunately it was not 

 answered in the extant records, but it would seem 

 likely that he was sole holder, and that after his death 

 the manor went to John Mowbray, third Duke of 



DORKING 



Norfolk. The inquisition taken after the latter's 

 death in 1 46 1 is unfortunately now missing," and the 

 entry in the calendar is insufficient. In 1468 M John, 

 Duke of Norfolk, and his wife Elizabeth had a grant 

 of certain privileges, including return of writs, within 

 their manor of Dorking. 34 



This Duke of Norfolk died in 1475," leaving an 

 only child Anne, who was for some years betrothed 

 to Richard, Duke of York, who perished in the 

 Tower. She died unmarried in 1480," and mem- 

 bers of the Nevill and Stanley families, as well as 

 descendants of Margaret and Isabel, daughters of the 

 first duke, appear as her co-heirs. A partition of 

 Dorking was probably then made. 38 



In a document of I 5 3 1 George Nevill, Lord Aber- 

 gavenny, is mentioned 38 as being one of the joint holders 

 of the manor of Dorking. Again, later in the 1 6th 

 century, Henry Nevill was in possession of part of 

 the manor, 40 and on I August 1587*' Edward Nevill, 

 Lord Abergavenny, held his first court, with no indi- 

 cation of being only a joint holder, and in 1623 died 

 seised " of the manor of ' Dorking Capel,' not that he 

 was concerned only with the part of the manor in 

 Capel, for the court chose bedells for Dorking and for 

 Capel, and tenants from both attended. Edward 

 NevilFs son Henry seems to have conveyed his share 

 of the manor to the Howard family." 



The family of Stanley, Earls of Derby, in like 

 manner again became involved in the history of Dork- 

 ing at the death of Anne Mowbray. In 1622 Thomas, 

 Earl of Derby, died seised of a moiety," which appa- 

 rently consisted of two quarter parts. In order to 

 explain his possession of more than one quarter it is 

 necessary to consider the third co-heir of Anne Mow- 

 bray, namely, William, Lord Berkeley. This William 

 was the son of Isabel daughter of the first Mowbray, 

 Duke of Norfolk," and although there seems no actual 

 record of his own connexion with Dorking Manor, his 

 son Maurice was seised of a fourth part in I5O4.' 6 It 

 seems as though he must have shortly afterwards con- 

 veyed his portion to the Earls of Derby, first because, 

 as stated above, they were afterwards seised of two 

 quarter parts ; secondly, because the Berkeleys are not 

 again found in possession ; and thirdly, because lands 

 did undoubtedly pass from the one family to the 

 other." 7 



However, that may have been, it seems that two 

 quarter parts were in the possession of the Earls of 

 Derby. In 1586 Henry, Earl of Derby, conveyed one 

 quarter to Sir Thomas Browne,* 8 and in 1594 Henry's 

 son Ferdinand died seised of the other quarter. 49 The 

 portion which remained in the Derby family was 



"*> Diet. Nat. Stag, liv, 75. 



38 Chan. Inq. p.m. 29 Hen. VI, no. 27. 



Aug. Off. Anct. Chart, i, 24. 



80 She died in 1439 seised of Dorking; 

 Chan. Inq. p.m. 18 June 1440 (copy). 

 Perhaps even then there was a division. 



81 1 8 July 1447, a tripartite indenture 

 was made between Lenthale's trustees, 

 the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Aber- 

 gavenny, giving the profits of the manor 

 to the trustees till such time as Lenthale's 

 debts were paid by them, and providing 

 for masses for his soul. The inquisition 

 p.m. was apparently postponed till, as we 

 should say, the estate was wound up ; D. 

 in Aug. Off. Anct. Chart, i, 234. 



M Ct.R. 14 Dec. 23 Hen. VI. 

 88 Cal. of Chan. Inq. p.m. (Rec. Com.), 

 iv, 316. 



84 Chart. R. 8-10 Edw. IV, m. 14. 



15 The Roll of 14 Sept 1468 ends up 

 with some accounts and ' To my lorde of 

 Norfolk yi Audytores.' The plural will 

 used in the Court Rolls may refer to him 

 and his wife. 



86 Chan. Inq. p.m. 17 Edw. IV, no. 58. 



"7G.E.C. Complete Peerage. 



88 The Nevills were descended from 

 Joan sister of the Earl of Arundel, who 

 died 1416, the Stanleys from Elizabeth 

 daughter of his sister Elizabeth. The 

 partition did not apparently extend to an 

 actual apportionment of the holdings. 

 Tenants admitted to the manor do fealty 

 ' to the lords ' collectively, one court 

 baron was held for the whole, and one 

 view of frankpledge, and the dues were 

 probably divided. 



145 



89 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), li, 48. 



40 Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), bdle. 159, no. 

 n. 



41 This was after Philip, Earl of Arundel 

 (heir to the Duke of Norfolk),was thrown 

 into the Tower, but before he was at- 

 tainted (1589). 



49 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccxcix, 



'57- 



48 They were in possession in 1652 ; 

 H. K. S. Causton, Hnvard Papers, 

 365. 



44 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), xxxix, no. 



45 Diet. Nat. Biog. xxxix, 225. 



48 Feet of F. Div. Co. Trin. 1 9 Hen. VII. 

 *! Diet. Nat. Biog. liv, 78. 



48 Feet of F. SUIT. Trin. 28 Eliz. 



49 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccxlii, 

 88. 



19 



