ELMBRIDGE HUNDRED 



THAMES DITTON 



in 1530, and this is repeated in a survey of I6O8. 46 

 Dudley and Joan his wife still held in 1533, when 

 they conveyed it to Lord Wentworth and others, 47 

 probably trustees for Thomas Duke of Norfolk. From 

 him the king purchased it in order to annex it to the 

 honour of Hampton Court.* 8 During the reign of 

 Elizabeth the manor was leased to various persons, 59 

 ultimately to Sir John Hill, who had a lease for 

 forty years to expire in 1623.*" After Hill's death his 

 widow, Lady Hill, sold the remainder of her lease to 

 Sir Dudley Carleton, created Baron Carfeton of 

 Imber Court in 1626 and Viscount Dorchester in 

 1628, to whom the king granted the manor in fee in 

 1630. He brought lime trees from the Hague to 

 plant in the garden, and also improved the house, 

 where he entertained the king and queen in 1 630." 

 He died in 1632 6> and left the manor in his will 

 to his nephew Sir Dudley Carleton. 6 * The latter, 

 who probably built the present house after designs 

 furnished by Inigo Jones for his uncle, conveyed the 

 estate to Edwin Knipe, merchant of London, who 

 held it in 1 669," and conveyed it to Shem Bridges in 

 1672.** He died about 171 1, leaving no issue, and 

 was succeeded by his nephew Henry Bridges, who 

 settled the manor with other estates on his niece 

 Anne Bridges on her marriage with Arthur Onslow. 66 

 The latter, who resided at Imber Court, died in 

 1768, and in 1784 his son Lord Cranley sold the 

 manor to George Porter. In 1791 Francis Ford 

 purchased the estate, 67 and in 1793 conveyed it to 

 Robert Taylor, 68 after whose decease in 1823 it passed 

 to Sir Charles Sullivan, bart., in right of his wife, the 

 only daughter of Mr. Taylor. 69 In 1861 the house 

 and lands were sold to Charles Corbett, 69 " whose 

 widow held them until her death in 1893. Her heirs 

 and executors sold the house and park in 1899. The 

 house is now again for sale ; the park is used for 

 trotting races. Mr. Julian Corbett, son of the last 

 lord, presented the manorial documents to the Surrey 

 Archaeological Society. 



In the reign of Edward III the manor was de- 

 scribed as consisting of ' a capital messuage of no 

 value, 1 20 acres of arable land, half of which may be 

 sown every year, and is then worth 1 101. ; the 

 other half cannot be sown unless it is well tilled, and 

 when left fallow is worth ^i for the pasturage ; 10 

 acres of meadow, valued at los. from the feast 

 of Pentecost to the gule (that is, the first) of August, 

 at other times of no value because it is in common ; 

 rents of assize of free tenants, 3 14^. o\J., 5 acres 

 of wood valued at ^i los. for the underwood and 

 3/. \d. for the pasturage.' ' Early in the reign 

 of Charles I a commission was issued for a survey of 

 the manor of Imber. The annual value was rated at 

 .18 6s. 8</., besides some small parcels of woodland 

 worth i 5*. 3</., and 3 acres not valued. 71 When 



Lord Cranley sold the manor it included a capital 

 mansion, other houses, and about 325 acres of land, 

 all tithe-free. 7 ' A farm called Chapel Farm formed 

 part of the Imber Court estate in 1632. " Imworth 

 or Imber water-mill is mentioned in the different 

 surveys of the manor. 



In 1553 there were two tenants holding by copy 

 of court roll who owed labour services. 



Part of Ditton Common is known as Littleworth 

 Common. The other parts are named after the 

 other manors, Ditton and Weston, but no manor of 

 Littleworth is known. 



The church of ST. NICHOLAS con- 



CHURCH sists of a chancel with north and south 



chapels and north vestry ; a nave with 



north and south aisles, a western tower, and a south 



porch. 



The north wall of the chancel dates from the 

 beginning of the 1 3th century, and part of a late- 

 1 2th-century pillar piscina is evidence of earlier 

 work. The north chapel was probably a ijth- 

 century addition, and the north arcade of the nave is 

 perhaps late 1 6th-century work. The broad and low 

 tower is apparently of the I 3th century, but all the 

 rest of the church is modern, the nave having been 

 widened on the south side. 



The east window of the chancel is modern, of three 

 trefoiled lights with geometrical tracery of late 13th- 

 century design, and is set within the opening of an 

 old window apparently of 1 4th-century date. On the 

 north side of the chancel is a low four-centred arch of 

 15th-century date continuously moulded with two 

 hollows, opening to the north chapel and designed to 

 contain a tomb and perhaps to serve for the Easter 

 sepulchre. Above this is a small lancet light, c. 1200, 

 with a wide internal splay and semicircular rear arch 

 and an external rebate. To the west is a two-centred 

 arch of one slightly chamfered order, under which 

 stands a fine but mutilated ijth-century monument. 



On the south are two bays of modern arcading 

 opening to the south chapel. The chancel arch is 

 of two chamfered orders, the outer continuous, the 

 inner dying into flat responds ; it appears to be of no 

 great age. 



The north chapel has on the east a modern 

 two-light window of similar design to the east window 

 of the chancel, and like it set in an old opening. On 

 the north is a modern door to the vestry and on 

 the west the opening to the north aisle. The 

 vestry is entirely modern and has two two-light 

 windows, to east and north, and an external door on 

 the north. 



The south chapel is also quite modern and has 

 a three-light window to the east, and two of two lights 

 to the south, all of similar design to the chancel east 

 window. On the west is a plain arch to the aisle. 



56 Surveys and Ct. R. in possession of 

 Surr. Arch. Soc. The lands described in 

 the surveys are in Long Ditton, Thames 

 Ditton, and Moleeey ; but fertincntia are 

 generally mentioned in Godstone, Ling- 

 field, Walkstead, Lagham, and Home. 

 These outlying holdings in the Weald 

 belong to a very ancient state of society 

 (cf. Banstead and Ewell), but no mention 

 of them is found before or after the grant 

 to Robert Smyth. 



w Feet of F. Div. Co. Mich, 25 Hen. 

 VIII ; Rccov. R. East. 25 Hen. VIII, 

 rot. 357. 



" Misc. Grants, 27 Hen. VIII. 



M Feet of F. Surr. Mich. 10 & II 

 Eliz. ; Pat. 10 Eliz. pt. iii ; Pat. 20 Eliz. 

 pt. i. 



60 Land Rev. Misc. Bks. no. 198, fol. 

 96. 



61 Pat. 5 Chas. I, pt. v ; Cal. S. P. Don. 

 1611-18, pp. 459, 596; Hist. AfSS. 

 Com. Rep. xii, App. pt. i, p. 414 ; in- 

 formation from Mr. Julian Corbett. 



** Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccclzv, 

 89. 



68 See S.P. Dom. Chas. I, cccxliv, 15. 

 64 Feet of F. Surr. Hil. 2O&2I Chas. II. 



465 



K Ibid. Trin. 24 Chas. II. 



66 Ibid Hil. 10 Geo. I. 



6 ' Brayley, Hist, of Surr. ii, 415. 



68 Feet of F. Surr. East. 34 Geo. III. 



69 Brayley, Hisf. of Surr. ii, 416. 



69a The manorial rights were apparently 

 sold to the owners of the manors of 

 Weston and East Molesey. (Information 

 from Mr. Julian Corbett.) 



7 Chan. Inq. p.m. 17 Edw. Ill, no. 45. 



'* Brayley, Hist, of Surr. ii, 415. 



7" Ibid. 416. 



78 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccclxv, 

 89. 



59 



