ELMBRIDGE HUNDRED
��WEYBRIDGE
��ooooo
ooo o
o o o
o o
o
���DUCHY OF CORNWALL. Sable fifteen bezants.
��which, like Weybridge, had been held of Chertsey and was annexed to the duchy of Cornwall, was in the king's hands in the reign of Edward I (see Byfleet). Wey- bridge was apparently annexed to the duchy of Cornwall be- fore 1 346, for in that year Reginald de Wodeham and others invaded the closes and houses of Edward the king's son, Duke of Cornwall, at Weybridge, mowed his hay, cut his trees, and hindered his servants in the collection of rents.' 8 This seems to prove that there was some local feeling against the justice of the royal acquisition.
In 1 540 Henry VIII annexed it, together with Byfleet Manor, &c., to the honour of Hampton Court, assigning to the duchy in return the manor of Ship- pon, co. Berks." From this time onwards the manor appears to have been held by the Crown and leased out to various persons, generally to the possessors of Oatlands. In 1578 Queen Elizabeth granted free warren in Weybridge Manor to Thomas Wilkins and others. 10 James I granted leases of the manor suc- cessively to Henry Prince of Wales," to Queen Anne," to Sir Francis Bacon," and (in reversion) to Charles Prince of Wales." Denzil Lord Holies held the manor under a lease from Charles II." In 1749 Abel Walter received a grant of it in reversion after a lease for 1 ,000 years from George II. 16
In 1 804 an Act of Parliament " enabled the Duke of York to become owner of the leasehold under the Crown. His estates were broken up at his death in 1827 (see Oatlands). Mr. Henry Edwards Paine is now lord of the manor.
O4TL4NDS and the former manor of HUN- DULSHAM, or HUNEW4LDESH4M. In 1086 Herfrey held Weybridge of Odo Bishop of Bayeux. Two sisters had held it in King Edward's time. When the bishop possessed himself of this land he had not the king's livery officer or writ therefor, as the hundred testified. 18 This cannot have been what was known as the manor of Weybridge, since that was held simultaneously by the Abbot and con- vent of Chertsey. It seems probable, therefore, that we have in this extract from Domesday the early history of the only other manor in the parish, that of Hune- waldesham or Hundulsham, afterwards included in the manor of Oatlands. Hunewaldesham was one of the alleged gifts of Frithwald to Chertsey," so that this was another of the many usurpations of the bishop recorded in Domesday. There is, however, a gap of nearly two hundred years before any further mention of the estate occurs. In 1252-3 Richer Maunsell and his wife Cecilia conveyed land in Hunewaldesham to Sarra de Wodeham ; and Richer conveyed land in
18 Pat 20 Edw. Ill, pt. ii, m. 15 d. ; Close, 22 Edw. Ill, pt. ii, m. 1 5.
19 Manning and Bray, Hat of Surr. ii, 785.
- > Pat 30 Eliz. pt v.
i Pat 8 Jan. I, pt xli. m Pat 1 3 Jas. I, pt. xxix. 88 Pat 14 Ja*. I, pt xx. 44 Pat. 14 Jas. I, pt. x. Pat. 24 Chas. II, pt iv. 48 Pat. 22 Geo. II, pt. ii.
- 7 44 Geo. Ill, cap. 25.
��Hunewaldesham to Joan widow of William de Hune- waldesham. In 1271-2 James de Wodeham made a grant in Hunewaldesham to John de Souwy. 30 In 1 290 Robert atte Otlond and Sibill his wife granted to James son of James de Wodeham 2 acres of land in Weybridge at a yearly rent of one rose. 3 ' In 1324 the Wodehams held property in Weybridge consisting of a messuage, 64 acres of land, 10 acres of meadow, 5 acres of pasture, 6 acres of wood, and a rent of 6/." Fifty years later John de Wodeham, son and heir of Reginald Wodeham, 33 granted to John Bouelythe lands in the parish of Weybridge called Hunewaldesham." In 1383 Symon atte Otlond is mentioned as paying a rent to Byfleet Manor, 34 probably for ' Otlond,' which was held of Byfleet, and a Simon atte Wey- bridge appears in the Court Rolls in 1389 as holding ' Otlond.'
Late in the I Jth century John de Wodeham died seised of Hundulsham Manor, which descended from him to his daughter and heiress, Margery Waker." She was disturbed in her possession by the heirs of Sir Bartholomew Reed. In 1505 Sir Bartholo- mew Reed, kt., had died seised of land in Wey- bridge called ' Otland,' 36a which he bequeathed to his wife Elizabeth, with remainder to his nephew William Reed. 37 After his death Dame Elizabeth and William Reed, the latter a goldsmith of London, took possession not only of those lands in Weybridge which Sir Bartholomew had undoubtedly held, but also of Hundulsham Manor. Thomas Waker, son and heir of Margery, appealed in the Court of Requests against the injustice of this proceeding, stating that as he himself was a poor man with but few friends, while the Reeds were ' of great substance ' and had great friends in the county, he was not able to sue against them. The Reeds denied that there had ever been such a manor as Hundulsham, 58 but said that Sir Bartholomew had been seised of two messuages and various lands in Weybridge, and that his right to them had been admitted in 1499 by Joan Arnold, daughter of Elizabeth, daughter of John Wodeham, who had quitclaimed from her heirs to Sir Bartholo- mew and his heirs. 39 Rightly or wrongly, the Reeds won their case : the manor of Hundulsham is never mentioned again, and in Sep- tember 1534 William Reed died seised of ' the manor called "Oteland" in Wey- bridge held of the ex-Queen Catherine,' and a number of tenements in Weybridge, under the will of his uncle Bartholo- mew. 40 His son John was still a minor, and was placed under the guardianship of Cromwell." A letter from Thomas Stydolf to Cromwell is still in existence, arranging for
���Oatlands. azure hold- "f g r " n
��* r.C.H. Surr. i, 304*. Cott. MS. VitelL A. xiii.
80 Surr. Fines (Surr. Arch. Coll.), 48.
81 Feet of F. Surr. East. 18 Edw. I, no. 26.
8a Ibid. Trin. 18 Edw. II.
83 See Weybridge descent.
84 Anct D. Surr. C. 628.
85 Surr. Arch. Coll. xvii, 53.
86 Ct of Req. bdle. 3, no. 106.
88a Sir Bartholomew Reed had acquired 78 acres of land in Weybridge and Walton
477
��leaves in its beak.
��from the widow of Thomas Warner (who died in 1478). Feet of F. Surr. 9 Hen. VII, no. 1 8.
"'Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), xix, 53.
88 Ct. of Req. bdle. ii, no. 98.
89 This statement is borne out by Feet of F. Surr. HiL 13 Hen. VII, but there is no mention of a manor, such as the Reeds claimed to hold later.
40 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), Ivii, 30.
41 See L. and P. Hen. Vlll, vii, 1 246 ; ix, 1151.
�� �
