A HISTORY OF SURREY 



over j^2, Runvale, as the tithing was then called, 

 paid /[i i5J."i Tilford contributed still less, but 

 by the sixteenth century it had increased in 

 value and was assessed at 4J. at the hundred 

 court, whereas Runvale was assessed at zs. 6d.'" 

 This, added to the subsequent decay of the 

 tithing, seems to indicate that the country round 

 was unfertile and consequently thinly populated. 



There is little trace now of the ancient tithing 

 of DOGFLUD, for it has been merged in the 

 south-eastern part of the town of Farnham. But 

 the tithing had a very distinct existence from the 

 thirteenth to the eighteenth century, for it appears 

 in the rent rolls of the bishops both early and late, 'sa 

 and in the extant court rolls dating from Henry 

 VII. »s« Its nearness to the manor and castle of 

 Farnham gave it a marked importance, and it is 

 mentioned in the rent rolls as ovnng ' Castle rent ' 

 for certain tenements to the lord of the manor."' 



In the court roll for 1542-3 an order is given for 

 the repair of ' Tonbrigge ' in ' Dogflode.' "' 

 This ' Tonbrigge ' probably survives in the street 

 still called Longbridge, in the part of Farnham 

 town which was originally Dogflud. It was in 

 this part of Farnham, in the Jolly Farmer inn, that 

 Cobbett was born. Close to it, on the left-hand 

 side of the road leading to Frensham, is a fine early 

 timbered house, and opposite to it a carved bow 

 window of good design. 



From Domesday it appears that 

 CHURCHES Osbern de Ow (Eu) held the church 

 of Farnham of the Manor of the 

 Bishop, and that it was worth six pounds, along 

 writh one hide which he had at Bentley in Hamp- 

 shire.>" This Osbern seems to be the same 

 Osbern who held the churches of Woking and of 

 Leatherhead in the royal manors of Woking and 

 Ewell.iM 



At an early date the rectory of Farnham was 

 annexed to the archdeaconry of Surrey. Probably 

 the advowson was at first held by the bishops of 

 Winchester, who collated the archdeacons as their 

 servants to the church of the place of their prin- 

 cipal residence. In 1252 dispensation was granted 

 to Walter, archdeacon of Surrey, to hold the 

 church of Farnham annexed to the archdeaconry, 

 as it had been granted to him by Bishop Walter 

 de Raleigh (i238-5o)."» The bishop in 1254 

 called in question the union of the church to the 



archdeaconry, but the Pope, notwithstanding, 

 ordered that the archdeacon should reuin the 

 church."" Again in 1 263 the Pope gave sentence 

 in favour of Peter de Sancto Mauro (or de Sancto 

 Mario), archdeacon of Surrey, against John, biihop 

 of Winchester, and others as to the right of the 

 former to the church of Farnham and its chapeli 

 annexed to the archdeaconry.'" 



In 1283 »"' the same archdeacon commenced 

 an action against the Abbey for small tithes, but it 

 does not appear of what parish ; as Waverley 

 had land in Farnham, and the vill of Waverley 

 was extra-parochial and afterwards tithe free, it is 

 probable that Farnham was the place referred to. 

 The suit dragged on for fifteen years, when it was 

 settled by the bishop as arbitrator.'" In the 

 Taxation of Pope Nicholas the rectory was valued 

 at 26 marks a year, and the vicarage at 22 marks. 

 In 1294, on Easter eve, a vicar was instituted on 

 the presentation of the archdeacon."* The en- 

 dowment of the vicarage seems to have been 

 annexed by the archdeacon, who was rector; 

 hence the quarrel and scandal of 1 33 1, in the time 

 of Archdeacon William Inge, referred to in the 

 Ecclesiastical History,"" when the archdeacon 

 refused to endow the vicar. There is no record 

 of the endowment of the vicarage being enforced, 

 but the matter was probably settled, for in the 

 valuation of Henry VIII. the vicarage appears as 

 j^29 5/. 5^. Bishop Morley, who died in 1684, by 

 his will left ;£2o a year in augmentation of the 

 vicarage, on condition that the vicar should reside, 

 all dispensations to the contrary notwithstanding ; 

 that he should read daily service, and that he or 

 his curate should catechize the children on Sunday. 

 Some of these conditions were not carried out in 

 1724, for it appears from returns made to the 

 bishop in that year that the vicar was non-resident, 

 and in 1810 it would seem that none of these con- 

 ditions were carried out,"» and again in 1827 there 

 was no resident vicar. The great tithes of Farn- 

 ham were for a long time habitually let by the 

 archdeacons for terms of three lives, with fines on 

 renewal ; and the tithes, great and small, of the 

 dependant chapelries of Frensham, Seale, Elsted 

 and Bentley, with the right of nomination of a 

 curate, were let in the same way."' 



It seems to have been a continuous practice, as 

 it appears that on 17 June, 1646, the Committee 



151 f^.C.H. Surr. i. 442. 



15> Ecd. Com. Ct. R. Bpric. of Win- 

 ton, bdle. 87, No. 6, bdle. 98, No. ^, 

 etc 



153 Ibid. Rent R. 



15* Ibid. Ct. R. 



155 Eccl. Com. Rent R. Bpric of 

 Winton. 



15« Ibid. Ct. R. 34. Hen. VIII. bdle. 

 79, No. 30. 



167 V.C.H. Surr. i. 283 and 300b. 



158 See Introduction to Domesday 

 section. 



159 Col. of Pupal Letters, i. 279. 

 Probably the date of the grant by 

 Bishop Walter was in 1245. Ibid. 219. 

 According to Manning and Bray (iii. 

 ■ ;3) King Stephen took the lands of 

 the church of Farnham away from the 



bishop, and gave them to the monks of 

 Waverley. Dugdale (Mon. v. 242) 

 quotes a bull of Eugenius III. giving 

 'ex dono Stephani regis Nietham et 

 Ferncham cum pertinenciis * as part of 

 the possessions of Waverley in 1147. 

 If Waverley ever had the advowson of 

 Farnham church, the bishop held it 

 again by 1245 {Cal- of Papal Letters, i. 

 219). A charter of 1283, which has 

 been taken by Manning and Bray to 

 mean the restoration of the advowson 

 to the bishop, is merely a confirmation 

 of existing rights (Chart. R. i2Edw. I. 

 m. 5). Another charter of 1 3 1 7, which 

 confirms all the possessions of Waverley, 

 makes no mention of any grant of 

 Farnham, although a grant of 23 

 Henry III. giving Neatham to the 



monks is quoted (Chart. R. 1 1 Edw. II. 

 No. 41, m. 41). 



160 Ibid. 294. 



151 Ibid. 405, 406. 



l»2 Ann. Mon. (Rolls Ser.), li. 400. 



i"" Winton. Epis. Reg. John of 

 Pontoise, fol. 27a. 



"» Ibid. 15. 7. i« Ante, p. 15. 



i"» Teste, Mr. Manning. 



I*' This practice was apparently very 

 ancient. In Edendon't Registers 1347 

 appears ' licentia ad dimittendum ad 

 firmam fructus de Ecclesia de Famhain 

 et capellarum annexarum ' (Epis. Reg. 

 Edyngdon, i. 35). Gardiner allowed 

 the archdeacon to let the tithet of 

 Frensham, Elsted, Seale and Bentley to 

 John Aynbe and his wife for five yean 

 (Epis. Reg. Gardiner, 49). 



