WOTTON HUNDRED
��This Joan became the ancestress of the Earls of Derby by her marriage with Sir Thomas Stanley."
����MOWBRAY, Duke of Norfolk. England with a Intel argent.
��STANLEY, Earl of Derby. Argent a bend azure with three hart? headi caboued or there* on.
��The second co-heir of Thomas, Earl of Arundel, was Joan Beauchamp, Lady Abergavenny ; her share descended to her granddaughter Elizabeth, afterwards the wife of George Nevill, who thus gained the lands and title of Abergavenny. Margaret, wife of Sir Roland Lenthale, was the third heir, but her claim to part of the inheritance lapsed at the death of her son Edmund, who died without issue IS before July 1 447.
The history of the manor is obscure, even with the aid of the Court Rolls placed at the service of in- vestigators by the courtesy of successive Dukes of Norfolk. For the rolls are far from continuous, and generally lack the name of the lord or lords whose courts are held. It is obvious, however, that on the death of Thomas, Earl of Arundel,in 1415, his widow, Beatrix of Portugal, held the manor as dower. 3 " The courts were held for a Domlna (feminine) from 1413 to 1431, when there is a break of five years. In 1435 and 1438 Dominus, in the masculine singular is used, probably Roland Lenthale, for his son Edmund. In 1 444 Domini begins, the Bishop of Bath and Wells and others," feoffees of Edmund Lenthale." This trust seems to have expired between 26 March 1450 and 21 July 1450, for Domini is used in the former, Dominus in the latter. The singular is used till 15 February 1451, after which the manor was divided, courts being henceforth held for Domini when the number is distinguished at all. In 1528 the question was raised in the court baron (17 Sep- tember 1528) 'whether Edmund Lenthale deceased was while alive sole holder of the manor of Dorking or holder with others.' Unfortunately it was not answered in the extant records, but it would seem likely that he was sole holder, and that after his death the manor went to John Mowbray, third Duke of
��DORKING
Norfolk. The inquisition taken after the latter's death in 1 46 1 is unfortunately now missing," and the entry in the calendar is insufficient. In 1468 M John, Duke of Norfolk, and his wife Elizabeth had a grant of certain privileges, including return of writs, within their manor of Dorking. 34
This Duke of Norfolk died in 1475," leaving an only child Anne, who was for some years betrothed to Richard, Duke of York, who perished in the Tower. She died unmarried in 1480," and mem- bers of the Nevill and Stanley families, as well as descendants of Margaret and Isabel, daughters of the first duke, appear as her co-heirs. A partition of Dorking was probably then made. 38
In a document of I 5 3 1 George Nevill, Lord Aber- gavenny, is mentioned 38 as being one of the joint holders of the manor of Dorking. Again, later in the 1 6th century, Henry Nevill was in possession of part of the manor, 40 and on I August 1587*' Edward Nevill, Lord Abergavenny, held his first court, with no indi- cation of being only a joint holder, and in 1623 died seised " of the manor of ' Dorking Capel,' not that he was concerned only with the part of the manor in Capel, for the court chose bedells for Dorking and for Capel, and tenants from both attended. Edward NevilFs son Henry seems to have conveyed his share of the manor to the Howard family."
The family of Stanley, Earls of Derby, in like manner again became involved in the history of Dork- ing at the death of Anne Mowbray. In 1622 Thomas, Earl of Derby, died seised of a moiety," which appa- rently consisted of two quarter parts. In order to explain his possession of more than one quarter it is necessary to consider the third co-heir of Anne Mow- bray, namely, William, Lord Berkeley. This William was the son of Isabel daughter of the first Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk," and although there seems no actual record of his own connexion with Dorking Manor, his son Maurice was seised of a fourth part in I5O4.' 6 It seems as though he must have shortly afterwards con- veyed his portion to the Earls of Derby, first because, as stated above, they were afterwards seised of two quarter parts ; secondly, because the Berkeleys are not again found in possession ; and thirdly, because lands did undoubtedly pass from the one family to the other." 7
However, that may have been, it seems that two quarter parts were in the possession of the Earls of Derby. In 1586 Henry, Earl of Derby, conveyed one quarter to Sir Thomas Browne,* 8 and in 1594 Henry's son Ferdinand died seised of the other quarter. 49 The portion which remained in the Derby family was
��"*> Diet. Nat. Stag, liv, 75.
38 Chan. Inq. p.m. 29 Hen. VI, no. 27.
Aug. Off. Anct. Chart, i, 24.
80 She died in 1439 seised of Dorking; Chan. Inq. p.m. 18 June 1440 (copy). Perhaps even then there was a division.
81 1 8 July 1447, a tripartite indenture was made between Lenthale's trustees, the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Aber- gavenny, giving the profits of the manor to the trustees till such time as Lenthale's debts were paid by them, and providing for masses for his soul. The inquisition p.m. was apparently postponed till, as we should say, the estate was wound up ; D. in Aug. Off. Anct. Chart, i, 234.
M Ct.R. 14 Dec. 23 Hen. VI. 88 Cal. of Chan. Inq. p.m. (Rec. Com.), iv, 316.
��84 Chart. R. 8-10 Edw. IV, m. 14.
15 The Roll of 14 Sept 1468 ends up with some accounts and ' To my lorde of Norfolk yi Audytores.' The plural will used in the Court Rolls may refer to him and his wife.
86 Chan. Inq. p.m. 17 Edw. IV, no. 58.
"7G.E.C. Complete Peerage.
88 The Nevills were descended from Joan sister of the Earl of Arundel, who died 1416, the Stanleys from Elizabeth daughter of his sister Elizabeth. The partition did not apparently extend to an actual apportionment of the holdings. Tenants admitted to the manor do fealty ' to the lords ' collectively, one court baron was held for the whole, and one view of frankpledge, and the dues were probably divided.
145
��89 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), li, 48.
40 Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), bdle. 159, no. n.
41 This was after Philip, Earl of Arundel (heir to the Duke of Norfolk),was thrown into the Tower, but before he was at- tainted (1589).
49 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccxcix,
'57-
48 They were in possession in 1652 ; H. K. S. Causton, Hnvard Papers, 365.
44 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), xxxix, no.
45 Diet. Nat. Biog. xxxix, 225.
48 Feet of F. Div. Co. Trin. 1 9 Hen. VII.
- ! Diet. Nat. Biog. liv, 78.
48 Feet of F. SUIT. Trin. 28 Eliz.
49 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccxlii, 88.
19
�� �
