A HISTORY OF SURREY 



his custody," and this heir was probably the William 

 Hansard who is found holding a fee in ' Bocheam ' 

 (Bookham) and Cateworthe of the honour of Bramber 

 in I2IO-I2,' 5 and again between 1234 and 1241. 

 In 1273 John and James, sons of William Hansard, 

 made a joint conveyance of lands in Little Bookham 

 to the Prior of St. Mary Southwark, 16 and in 1275 

 John (here Sir John) died seised of the manor of 

 Bookham, 17 leaving as his heir his nephew James 

 son of James Hansard. 



It seems however that James Hansard, the elder, 

 had already made a grant to William de Braose (the 

 overlord), 18 and in 1291 Mary widow of William de 

 Braose had livery of the manor, which she is said to 

 have held jointly with her husband before his death 

 in 1290," and of which she enfeoffed Ralph de 

 Camoys and Margaret her daughter, wife of Ralph, 

 in 1303.* In 1306 Ralph and Margaret obtained 

 licence to regrant the manor to Mary for life, with 

 reversion to themselves and heirs of Margaret." 



In the next year, consequent upon an assize of 

 novel disseisin having been brought against them by 

 James Hansard with regard to this manor, Ralph and 

 Margaret summoned Mary to secure them against 

 loss, and Mary thereupon agreed that if they or their 

 heirs should be deprived of the manor, she and her 

 heirs would make good such loss out of her manor of 

 Wynesthorp in Yorkshire." 



This is the last mention of the Hansards in con- 

 nexion with the manor, which, however, in 1399 

 appears under the name of Bookham Hansard." Mary 

 de Braose died in 1326, her next heir being her 

 grandson Thomas son of Peter de Braose, then aged 

 26." Ralph and Margaret however had seisin of 

 this manor in accordance with the above settlement," 

 but before 1334 it was acquired from them by the 

 said Thomas de Braose, who in that year had licence 

 to convey it to Robert de Harpurdesford," for the 

 purpose of settlement on himself and Beatrice his 

 wife and their heirs. 



Thomas died seised of the manor in 1 361, leaving 

 a son John, who died in 1367, and in 1372-3 the 

 manor was conveyed by Sir Peter de Braose and 

 others to Beatrice, widow of Thomas, for her life, 

 with remainder to her children, Thomas, Peter, Eliza- 

 beth, and Joan, and their heirs respectively, and in 

 default of such to the right heirs of Thomas." Beatrice 

 died in I383, 18 and in 1395, on the death of her 

 son Thomas, and of his infant children Thomas and 

 Joan a few weeks later," the manor passed to Elizabeth, 

 the daughter of Beatrice mentioned above and now 

 wife of Sir William Heron. Elizabeth died without 

 issue on 8 July 1 399,* and in the inquisition taken 



the next year on the Duke of Norfolk, one of the 

 heirs of the Braoses, this manor was said to be held by 

 Sir William Heron, 31 on whose death in 1404** it 

 reverted to the Braose line represented by George 

 son of John son of Peter de Braose. 33 



George died in 1418 seised of this manor, which 

 he held jointly with his wife Elizabeth, 34 when his 

 next heir was found to be Hugh Cokescy, aged 15, 

 son and heir of Walter Cokesey, son of Isabella wife 

 of Walter Cokesey, kt., and daughter of Agnes wife 

 of Uriah Seyntpere and sister of the said George. 

 Hugh died in 1445," and his widow Alice, who had 

 married Sir Andrew Ogard, in 1460," when the 

 manors passed to Joyce Beauchamp, sister and heir of 

 Hugh, and afterwards wife of Leonard Stapelton, but 

 at this date a widow. Joyce died in 1473, leaving a 

 son and heir, Sir John Grevyle, kt., 8 ' aged 40, who 

 died in 1480 seised of the manor, 38 leaving a son and 

 heir Thomas, who appears to have taken the name of 

 Cokesey, and who was one of the Knights of the 

 Bath at the coronation of Henry VII, and was 

 created a knight banneret for his services at the battle 

 of Stoke." On the death of Thomas without issue 

 in 1498, Thomas, Earl of Surrey (afterwards Duke of 

 Norfolk) and Sir Maurice Berkeley, as cousins and 

 heirs of George Braose, had special livery of his 

 estates. 40 Little Bookham, to the overlordship of which 

 they had a claim as representatives of the Mowbrays, 

 fell to the former, who settled it for life on his 

 second son William Howard, 41 afterwards Lord Howard 

 of Effingham and Lord Chamberlain. On the at- 

 tainder of the Duke of Norfolk the grant was renewed 

 by the king, and was confirmed by Edward VI in 

 1 5 5 3 " to William and his heirs. Lord Howard 

 subsequently became involved in pecuniary difficulties, 

 and in 1566, after rendering an account of his Surrey 

 possessions to his great-nephew Thomas, Duke of 

 Norfolk, begged that an estate might be found for his 

 wife out of his manor of Little Bookham and his 

 moiety of Reigate, the former being then ' lette into 

 for certaine rent-corne for provisions of my house ' 

 and worth z l per annum. 4 * Lord Howard of Effing- 

 ham died seised of the manor in 1573," leaving a 

 son and heir Charles, afterwards Earl of Nottingham, 

 who in 1622 4S settled the manor on himself and his 

 second wife Margaret for their lives, with remainder 

 to his eldest surviving son Charles, Lord Howard. 

 The said earl died in 1624," and his widow married 

 William, Viscount Castlemaine, courts for the manor 

 being held in their names in 1633 and 1635." 

 The reversion, however, appears to have been pur- 

 chased by Benjamin Maddox, whose son Howard 

 Maddox died seised of this manor in 1637, leaving 



14 Pipe R. 1189-90 (Rec. Com.), 218. 



Red Bk. ofExch. (Rolls Ser.), 561. 



16 Feet of F. Div. Co. I & 2 Edw. I, 

 no. n. 



V Chan. Inq. p.m. Edw. I, file 1 1, 

 no. i. 



18 Cal. Close, 1272-9, p. 501. 



19 Ibid. 1288-96, pp. 160, 162. 



80 Cal. Pat. 1301-7, p. 147 j Chan. 

 Inq. p.m. 31 Edw. I, no. 68. 



81 Chan. Inq. p.m. 33 Edw. I, no. 264 ; 

 Cal. Pat. 1301-7, p. 442 ; Feet of F. SUIT. 

 Trin. 34 Edw. I, 134, 13. 



88 Add. Chart. 20036. 



*> Chan. Inq. p.m. Hen. IV, file 17. 



M Ibid. 19 Edw. II, no. 90. 



46 Cal. Close, 1323-7, p. 437. Peter 



father of Thomas had claimed the manor 

 againet Ralph and Margaret in 1 306 (Feet 

 of F. Surr. 39 Edw. I, no. 1 3). 



88 Cal. Pat. 1334-8, p. 62 ; Feet of F. 

 Div. Co. 1 1 Edw. Ill, no. 22. 



V Add. MSS. 5705. 



88 Chan. Inq. p.m. 7 Ric. II, no. 15. 



89 Ibid. 19 Ric. II, no. 7. 



80 Suss. Arch. Ci.ll. viii, 100. 



81 Chan. Inq. p.m. I Hen. IV, no. 71^. 

 81 Ibid. 6 Hen. IV, no. 21. 



83 Pat. 24 Hen. VI, pt. i, m. 28 ; Suit. 

 Arch. Call, viii, 101. 



84 Chan. Inq. p.m. 6 Hen. V, no. 

 48. 



85 Ibid. 24 Hen. VI, no. 36. 



86 Ibid. 38-9 Hen. VI, no. 49. 



7 Ibid. 13 Edw. IV, no. 31. 

 88 Ibid. 20 Edw. IV, no. 72. 

 88 Dugdale, War-w. (2nd cd.), 707. 



40 Coll. Tofog. and Gen. vi, 74 ; Pat. 

 14 Hen. VII, pt. ii, m. 4 j Suss. Arch. 

 Coll. viii, 100. 



41 L. and P. Hen. VIII, ix (i), 278 



(50- 



48 Pat. 7 Edw. VI, pt. ix, m. 12. 

 48 Lansd. MSS. ix, 49. 



44 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), clxv, no. 172. 



45 Recov. R. 20 Jas. I, rot. 1 5 ; Feet 

 of F. Surr. 19 Jas. I. 



46 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccclxxi, 

 no. 69. 



4 ' Manning and Bray, Hist, of Surr. ii, 

 704. 



336 



