Page:Surrey Archaeological Collections Volume 7.djvu/117

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
LOCAL HISTORY OF PEPER HAROW.
25

held it, it had been assessed at five hides (about 600 acres), whereas at the date of the Domesday survey it was assessed at only three hides, which is the more remarkable, as it was valued under King Edward at 30s., and under William the Conqueror at 100s. The arable land was estimated at three carucates, which Manning considers as equivalent to 300 acres, two-thirds of which were included in the demesne, and one-third was in the hand of four villains and three cottars. One mill and seven acres of meadow are also mentioned as belonging to the demesne. According to the last Ordnance Survey, the present extent of arable and pasture land in the parish of Peper Harow is about 400 acres, exclusive of the park. Considering that part of the land now cultivated was then overgrown with trees, while much of the park was probably then under tillage, the correspondence between the old and the new survey is certainly remarkable. The descendants of Walter Fitz Other, who also owned the neighbouring manors of Hurtmore and Compton, assumed the surname of De Windsor, and continued to hold Peper Harow as tenants-in-chief until some time in the fifteenth century. It appears, however, that in the reign of Henry III., William de Braunche was in actual possession of it, and that his family afterwards held it in fee under the De Windsor family at a quit rent of 6s. 8d. in lieu of twenty-four weeks' service on castle guard at Windsor. The Braunche family evidently retained its hold on Peper Harow until the end of Edward III.'s reign, but, in the mean time, we find Henry de Guldeford, Henry de Stockton or Stoughton, and Hervie de Stanton (founder of Michael House, at Cambridge), acting successively as if they were absolute owners of the property. As there was nothing to prevent any number of tenants holding under one another in fee before the statute Quia Emptores checked the practice of subinfeudation, these breaks in continuity of succession are not inexplicable, though I cannot pretend to furnish any trustworthy explanation of them. I am not aware that any visible memorial remains of these three hundred years during which Peper