Page:Surrey Archaeological Collections Volume 1.djvu/227

This page has been validated.
MANOR OF HATCHAM.
127

that these lands should be again taken into the king's hands, and the sheriff was, on the 4th June, ordered to seize them and keep them in safe custody, and to attach Philip Burnel by his body to answer within eight days of St. John the Baptist; but before that time he died, and the king retained possession of these lands.[1]

In 13 Edw. I. the king granted to Adam de Bavent his charter of free warren over all his demesne lands in Hacchesham, but in the same year Bavent alienated a part of his estate to Gregory de Rokesley, which afterwards came into the hands of the Burnells, and was called Little Hatcham; what he retained was called the manor of Hachesham Bavent, now corrupted into Hatcham Barnes, and with the history of this manor we will first proceed, as it is the larger and more important of the two.

Adam de Bavent was summoned to Parliament from 6 to 15 Edw. I., and died about 21 Edw. I., leaving Roger, his son and heir, who was then under age, whereupon William de Say, as lord of the fee, became entitled to the custody of the person and lands of the heir; but it being supposed that Roger held of the crown in capite, and not of Lord Say, a writ, dated the 5th December, 21 Edw. I. [1292], was issued directing the escheator to seize the lands into the king's hands.[2]

Thereupon William de Say, in Michaelmas Term, 22 Edw. I., came before the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer, and demanded that the custody should be restored to him, asserting that it belonged to him and not to the king, because that Adam de Bavent held of him in capite three knight's fees, one of which was in

  1. Lord Treasurer's Memoranda Roll, 21 and 22 Edw. I. memb. 47.
  2. Fine Roll, 21 Edw. I. memb. 26.