A HISTORY OF MIDDLESEX 



further petition was brought before the Lord Pro- 

 tector and Council, by ' many poor men ' of the 

 parishes of Walton, Weybridge, East and West 

 Molesey, Cobham, Esher, Byfleet, Thames Ditton, 

 Wisley, Chesham and Shepperton, complaining 

 that ' their commons, meadowes and pastures be 

 taken in, and that all the said parishes are overlayd 

 with the deer now increasing largely upon them, 

 very many Households of the same Parishes be lett 

 fall down, the Families decayed, and the King's 

 liege people much diminished, the country there- 

 about in manner made desolate, over and besides 

 that his Majesty loseth yearly, diminished in his 

 Yearly Revenues and Rents to a great Summe.' 



The Lord Protector and Council examined 

 twenty-four men of the parishes, and they were 

 also interrogated by Sir Anthony Browne, 

 Master of the Horse and Chief Keeper of the 

 Chase, and it was decided that after Michaelmas 

 that year the deer should be put into the Forest of 

 Windsor, the pale round the chase taken away, and 

 the land restored to the old tenants, to pay again 

 their former rents." A proviso was however 

 entered ' that if it shall please his Majesty to use 

 the same as a chase again,' the order was not to be 

 taken as prejudicial to the sovereign's rights. These 

 lands are therefore still technically a royal chase, 

 and the paramount authority over all game within 

 its limits is vested in the Crown. 



In 1639 Charles I appears to have wished to 

 make a new ' forest ' by inclosing a tract of about 

 10 miles of country between Hampton Court and 

 Richmond as a ' hunting ground for red as well as 

 fallow deer.' 79 He even began building the wall 

 to make this inclosure, but so much indignation 

 was aroused among the people at the idea of their 

 commons and pasture lands being taken from them 

 that Archbishop Laud is said to have dissuaded the 

 king ; and a new ' Hampton Court Chase ' was 

 not made." 



In the time of Edward the Con- 

 M4NOR fessor HAMPTON was held by Earl 

 Algar. It was granted by the Con- 

 queror to Walter de St. Valery, who also received 

 the neighbouring manor of Isleworth and consider- 

 able property in other parts of England. 80 In 

 1086 he held 35 hides in Hampton, 1 8 hides 

 being in demesne, the rest farmed by tenants. 



For considerably over a century Hampton remained 

 in the hands of the St. Valerys. In 1130 Henry I 

 remitted to Reginald de St. Valery, probably grand- 

 son of Walter," the sums of 10 lot. of his 

 Danegelt, and i I i6s. zd. of the auxiftum comitatus 

 in Middlesex." He appears to have held the office 

 of dapifer to Henry II before his accession. 81 

 From 1158 to 1163 Reginald was still holding 

 lands in Middlesex and other counties. 84 In 

 1 173-6, a Bernard de St. Valery, presumably SOB 

 of Reginald, is mentioned as holding what appear 

 to be the same lands. 84 In 1201-2 Thomas, 

 probably son of Bernard, held the property , M and 

 seems to have been in possession till 1218-19, 

 when Henry of St. Albans was permitted by 

 Henry III to retain the manor of Hampton, 

 which he held of the gift of Thomas de St. 

 Valery, notwithstanding that all the lands of the 

 said Thomas de St. Valery had been taken into 

 the king's hands. 87 It has been suggested that 

 Thomas joined the rebel barons in the reign of 

 King John, and if he did not submit on the acces- 

 sion of Henry III, his lands may have been for- 

 feited after the battle of Lincoln in 1 2 1 7." He 

 died in 1219, leaving only a daughter, Annora, 

 whose first husband, Robert de Dreux, possessed the 

 other St. Valery manor of Isleworth in right of 

 his wife. 89 



Henry of St. Albans, who thus became lord of 

 the manor at some period before 1218-19, was 

 well known as a merchant and citizen of London, 

 and was one of the sheriffs in I2o6. w He only 

 held Hampton for a short 

 time, as in 1237 he sold it 

 to Terrice de Nussa, Prior 

 of the Hospital of St. John 

 of Jerusalem in England, 

 for 1,000 marks, 91 he and 

 his wife Sabine quitclaiming 

 all rights in the manor to 

 the prior and his successors. 

 The prior seems to have 



made some claim to the 



,. , THE KNIGHTS Hoi- 



property at an earlier date, , ITAllIils . G ule,* cross 



as in the Close Rolls of argent. 

 1230 a 'contention' is 



mentioned between H. de S'. Albans and the 



prior concerning ' the house of Hampton ; " and 



" Harl. MSS. 6195. ' Extract! from 

 Council Bk. of Edw. VI,' fol. 2 d.~3 d. 

 Acts ofP.C. 1547-50, p. 190, &c. 



^ 8 Clarendon, Hilt, of Rebellion, i, 

 100 ; Law, op. cit. ii, iz6. 



" 9 Ibid. Grove, Hist, of Wolsey, iv, 

 i86n. 



*" Domesday Bk. (Rec. Com.) ; Pipe 

 R. 4, 8, 9, 19, 22, Hen. II (Pipe 

 R. Soc.) ; Rot. Cane. 3 John (ed. 

 Hardy), 105 ; ed. Round, Cal. of Doc., 

 France, i, 385 ; Dugdale, Baronage, \, 

 454. Planche, in The Conqueror and 

 His Companions, and Lipscomb, Hist, of 

 Bucks, i, 367, give pedigrees of the St. 

 Valery family, which trace its descent 

 from Ric. II, Duke of Normandy, and 

 ' Papia,' his second wife ; -vide Gen. 

 iv, 239. For the St. Valerys in Nor- 

 mandy at a later period see Round, 

 Cal. of Doc. France, i, 6 et seq. 



81 It is generally thought that there 

 was a Guy or a Bernard who was the 

 son of Walter and father of Reginald; 

 vide Gen. iv, 239 ; Dugdale, Baron- 



og', ',454- 



89 Pipe R. 31 Hen. I, m. 29d. 

 (Midd.). 



83 Round, Cal. of Doc. France, i, 519 

 (1151). 



84 Pipt R. 4 Hen. II (Pipe R. Soc.), 

 114 ; 8 Hen. II, 8, 14, 19, 27, 36, 42, 



44, 49, 67, 7' i 9 *' n > '9, 49- 



84 Ibid. 19 Hen. II, 170 ; 22 Hen. 

 II, 29. In 1189 a Reginald de St. 

 Valery and Bernard his son are men- 

 tioned as confirming a grant of lands in 

 Glouc, to the Abbey of Fontevrault ; 

 Round, Cal of Doc. France, i, 286, 380, 

 385. This Bernard is said to have been 

 killed at the siege of Acre in 1190. 

 Planche, The Conqueror and His Cam- 



324 



fanions ; Lipscomb, Hist. Bucks, i, 367; 

 Gen. iv, 239-41 ; Banks, Dorm, and 

 Ext. Baronage, vi, 174 ; Dugdale, 

 Baronage, i, 454 ; Law, Hist. Hampton 

 Court Palace, i, 8. 



86 Rot. Cane. 3 John (ed. Hardy), 

 102, 105. 



87 Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 

 385*. 



88 Law, op. cit. i, 8. 



89 fide Planche, op. cit. j Lipscomb, 

 op. cit. ; Dugdale, op. cit, ; Gen. iv, 241. 



*> Harl. MSS. 4015, 80, 8oA, 8 1 ; 

 Cal. Pat. 1216-23; c "l- R <y- Letters, 

 Reign of Hen. HI, 254 (1225) ; R. R. 

 Sharpe, Cal. Le ter Bks. of Land. F, 27. 



91 Feet of F .Lond. and Midd. 21 

 Hen. Ill, no .148. 



93 Cal. Clote, 1227-31, p. 451. 

 What the 'contention' was is not 

 explained. 



