Page:VCH Surrey 1.djvu/384

A HISTORY OF SURREY Edward Tornecroste [Thorncroft] was worth 100 shillings ; when he received it, 60 shil- lings ; now 1 10 shillings. Two hides always (were worth) 30 shillings. 1 Coleman's hide (was worth) 10 shillings. In this Hundred the Abbot of Westminster holds 2 hides, but they are appraised in another Hundred.* In MIDKHAM [ ? ] there lies i hide which Seman held of king Edward, and now holds of king William. He has in demesne there a plough, and 3 bordars, and half an acre of meadow. It ,is, and was, worth 2O shillings. In the same place Godwin holds a virgate of king William. The same held it of king Edward. It is worth 30 pence by the year. In the same Hundred, William son of Ansculf holds 2 hides, but they are appraised in another Hundred.* p. 35, b. ii. IN FINGEHAM [EFFINGHAM] HUNDRED Oswold* holds of Richard EPINGEHAM [Effingham], Azor* held it of king Edward. It was then assessed for 6 hides, now for 2^ hides. With these 6 hides Oswold holds I hide and I virgate of land which a free .man held under king Edward, but for a certain need of his he sold it to Azor in the time of king William. The land is for 5 ploughs altogether. In demesne there are 2 ploughs ; and (there are) 6 villeins and 5 bordars with 2 ploughs. There are 6 serfs ; and 4 acres of meadow ; and wood worth 5 hogs. From the herbage, 3 hogs. In the time of king Edward it was worth 100 shillings, and afterwards 4 pounds and 10 shillings ; now 6 pounds. 1 These are the 2 hides (and i virgate) which Mervin, Alric and Aimer had held (J. H. R.). ' These 2 hides do not appear under the holding of the church of Westminster. At the Dissolution Westminster held one quarter of the manor of Hedley, which may repre- sent these hides (See also here p. 293 above). 8 See under Milton, 36, a. i. 4 An Azor, dead by 1086, kept his land from the time of king Edward. Oswold, an Englishman, not only kept most of his, but acquired more. See 36, b. ii., under Wotton ; and above it, for an Englishman putting his land under Oswold's protection from the time that king William came into England. Oswold was a prudent man rather than a patriot. Oswold also held at Effing- ham under Chertsey. IN WOCHINGES [WOKING] HUNDRED Richard himself holds BOCHEHAM [Ock- ham] B in demesne. JElmar held it of king Edward. It was then assessed for 9 hides ; now for i hides. The land is for 4 ploughs. In demesne there is I plough ; and (there are) 6 villeins and 2 bordars with 2 ploughs. There is a church ; and 3 serfs ; and 2 fisheries worth 10 pence ; and 2 acres of meadow. Wood worth 60 hogs. It is worth, and was always worth, 100 shillings. Ralph holds of Richard HOCLEI [Ockley]. 6 Almar held it of king Edward. Then, and now, it (was and) is assessed for i hide. The land is for 4 ploughs. In demesne there is 1 ; and (there are) 9 villeins and 3 bordars with 4 ploughs. Wood worth 20 hogs ; and 2 serfs. In the time of king Edward it was worth 70 shillings, and afterwards, and now, the like. In this manor Richard himself holds half a hide. 7 Alwin held it in the time of king Edward, and could put it under what lord he pleased (potuit cum ea ire quo voluit). Then it was assessed for half a hide ; now for nothing. It is appraised in Hoclei [Ockley]. 5 Ockham, pretty certainly, for it was De Clare land later. If the spelling be correct, it disposes of the alleged Celtic derivation of Ockham. 6 There is no reasonable doubt that this is Ockley, though Ockley is in Wotton Hundred. The clerk wrote In TVodetone Hundreds below the entry by mistake, or rather omitted it above. Ockley was a De Clare manor ; they had a small castle there. There is an outlying piece of 23 acres be- longing to Ockham parish and manor, and to Woking Hundred, adjacent to Ockley parish. Possibly Ockley may for some reason have been counted with it in Woking Hundred formerly. This manor, with, perhaps, Arseste below, are the only two named in Surrey upon the Wealden clay ; they were accessible from the north by the Roman Stone Street, which runs through them. If Horley is the name- less manor of Chertsey, it adds another on the clay, and Gosterwood adjacent to Ockley is another, if that is Richard's holding in Wot- ton. See note p. 328. 7 Dimidia hida, in the original, but the accusative must have been meant. The care- lessness of the clerk bears out the probability of the mistake noticed above. This may be Gosterwood, unless that is the land mentioned under Wotton. See note on Wotton, p. 328. 320