| AdminHistory | COWDRAY is in Easebourne, a West Sussex parish which adjoins the small town and former parliamentary borough of Midhurst, some ten miles north of Chichester. The ruins of Cowdray House, burned out in 1793, stand in fact only 600 yards from the centre of Midhurst, with the river Rother, the parish boundary, flowing between them. The present house, Cowdray Park, built by the 7th Earl of Egmont, c. 1875, is about ¾ mile further eastward, 500 yards south of the Midhurst-Petworth road (A272).
THE COWDRAY ESTATE
Cowdray as a place-name is not apparently known earlier than 1284/5 when an inquisition found that the sub-escheator of Sussex had sold wood in the wood called la Codray (Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 1, p. 392. A. Mawer and F. M. Stenton, The Place-Names of Sussex (English Place-Name Society), pt. 1, p. 17, note however the personal name, John de la Coudreye, in 1279.). A house called la Coudreye is mentioned in 1320 (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1317-1321, p. 539. The word 'manor' would in this context refer to a house.), and the manor of 'Coderay' is used as an alternative name for that of Midhurst in the inquisition post mortem on Cicely, widow of Sir John de Bohun, in 1383/4 (Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, [vol. 15,] p. 373 (not yet published, but page proofs available in the search room at the Public Record Office); the original document is C.136/31/7. The name is incorrectly printed as 'Coderey' in Calendarium Inquisitionum Post Mortem sive Escaetarum (Record Commission), vol. 3, p. 58.).
The earliest known reference to what was subsequently called the Cowdray estate seems however to occur in a charter of Henry II of c. 1160 confirming an agreement between two brothers, Geldwin and Savaric FitzSavaric, for the division of lands lately belonging to another brother Ralph, by which Geldwin was to have, among other properties, the manor of Easebourne with Midhurst, and the vill of Rustington. Geldwin seems to have held these until c. 1185, when they passed to his son Frank, called de Bohun, who was confirmed in them by Richard I in 1190. The estate then descended in the family until 1492 when it passed upon the death of John Bohun without male issue to his daughter Mary, wife of Sir David Owen, who sold to Sir William Fitzwilliam in 1529, at which point the medieval history of Cowdray may be said to have ended (There is no fresh information in the Cowdray MSS. upon the medieval history of the estate, for which, see V.C.H. Sussex, vol. 4, p. 77; W. H. St. John Hope, Cowdray and Easebourne Priory, pp. 1-10; W. Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, vol. 3, pp. 65-69. For the Bohun family, see G. W. Watson, 'The Bohuns of Midhurst', in The Genealogist (n.s.), vol. 28, pp. 1-16, 114-123, 173-174; C. E. Snowden, 'The De Bohuns of Midhurst', in Sussex County Magazine, vol. 7, pp. 307-313; G.E.C., Complete Peerage, vol. 2, pp. 199-202. The last John Bohun seems to have left two daughters, and it is not clear why the estate passed to the elder. The circumstances of the conveyance from Sir David Owen to Sir William Fitzwilliam, which were somewhat unusual, are set out in great detail by St. John Hope, pp. 17-20, but he appears to have overlooked a mid-sixteenth century statement, 'A remembraunce of the assurance of the Manor of Mydhurst otherwyse called the Manor of Cowdrey', in the register of title deeds of the 1st Viscount Montague, B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 69.).
The modern Cowdray estate (a phrase used here and throughout to comprehend all properties, wheresoever situated, which belonged to the owner of the estate) dates from the second quarter of the sixteenth century (royal licence to make Cowdray Park and to enclose the house with embattled walls was granted in 1532/3 (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 6, p. 44. The licence is printed by W. H. St. John Hope, Cowdray and Easebourne Priory, p. 29. The original letters patent are apparently at Althorp House, Northamptonshire; see Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 77, pp. 255-256.), and the new Cowdray House was begun about the same time). The estate was initially made up of the following three groups of properties:-- (It must be understood that this is an introduction to the Cowdray MSS., not a history of the Cowdray estate, and no reference is therefore made to properties not mentioned in the documents. Most of these properties were in Surrey, and details may be found in the relevant volumes of the V.C.H. of that county.)
(i) the estates of Sir William Fitzwilliam, created Earl of Southampton in 1537. His purchase of the Cowdray estate had brought him the manors of Cowdray, Easebourne (From about the middle of the sixteenth century this manor has been known as Easebourne Priory, and it may be worth emphasizing that at no period did it ever belong to the priory.), and Rustington, the lordship of the borough of Midhurst, and the advowson of Easebourne. Then in 1536 he received a grant from the Crown of, first, the site of the dissolved abbey of Waverley in Surrey, together with some of its possessions, including the manors of Waverley, Wanborough, and Markwick and Monkenhook (in Alford), all in Surrey, and the rectories of Waverley and Wanborough; the manors of Neatham (in Holleybourne), Swarraton, and Boyatt (in Otterbourne), all in Hampshire; the manor of Dockenfield (in Frensham) in Surrey and Hampshire; and the manor of Shaw [Grange] in Berkshire: and, secondly, the site of the dissolved priory of Easebourne, with some of its possessions, including the manor of Worthing, the rectory and advowson of Compton, and the advowsons of Midhurst, Fernhurst, and Lodsworth (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 11, p. 88 (which however omits the advowson of Compton); Cowdray MS. 912. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 27. The word 'grant' here and in succeeding paragraphs is used in its more popular sense to indicate a transfer of property from the Crown, but the majority of these were in fact conveyances for a valuable consideration and not gifts. In this particular case, it will be seen that, although no consideration is mentioned, the Crown reserved a rent of one-tenth of the annual value of the properties, which was bought out in 1672 (deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/4362, no. 4).). This was followed in 1541 by a grant from the Crown of the manor of St. John, by the name of the manor of Midhurst (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 16, p. 463; Cowdray MS. 14. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 20v.), a small area in the town, formerly belonging to the dissolved order of St. John of Jerusalem (but outside the area of the borough, and therefore exempt from the jurisdiction of the borough officials), together with the chapel. The Earl of Southampton died in 1542 without issue, and his properties, in accordance with the terms of a previous settlement, and subject to the life interest of his widow, passed to his half-brother Sir Anthony Browne (The deed of settlement, entered in the register of title deeds, B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 71, was made in 1538, and does not therefore mention the manor of St. John. The Countess lived until 1550, but Sir Anthony Browne seems to have entered upon the properties at once; see W. H. St. John Hope, Cowdray and Easebourne Priory, p. 22.)
(ii) the estates of the Lady Lucy Browne, fourth daughter and coheir of Isabel, Marchioness of Montagu. By Act of Parliament of 1530, Lucy was granted, first, the dissolved abbey of Bayham in the Sussex part of Lamberhurst, and its manors of Bayham, and Lewis Heath (in Horsemonden, Kent), and, secondly, the dissolved priory of Calceto in Lyminster, with its manors of Calceto, Selham, and Bourne or Westbrook (in Westbourne), as her share in an annuity of 500 marks granted by the Crown in 1339 to Thomas de Bradeston until such time as he or his heirs should receive in fee an equivalent of land or rent (Statutes of the Realm, vol. 3, pp. 352-355. An undated inspeximus is entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 8v. For the grant to Thomas de Bradeston, see Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1338-1340, p. 395. The descent of Lady Lucy Browne from de Bradeston is conveniently summarized in G.E.C., Complete Peerage, vol. 2, p. 273.). In her will, proved in 1534, Lucy left these properties to her sons, the above William Fitzwilliam and Anthony Browne, and to the survivor (P.C.C. 15 Hogen.), so that the latter acquired the whole of these properties in 1542 upon the death of his half-brother (The subsequent history of these properties is however obscure, for in 1606/7 the King granted them, except for Bayham abbey and the manor of Bayham, to the 2nd Viscount Montague (Patent Roll, P.R.O., C.66/1700; Cowdray MS. 20), following this in 1607 with a second grant in similar terms (Patent Roll, P.R.O., C.66/1734; Cowdray MS. 924). (The first of these describes the properties as having devolved upon the Crown through the attainder of Wolsey, but this phrase is omitted from the second; the earlier grant is not however vacated upon the Patent Roll. Moreover both these grants include the manor of Lewis Heath, although the 2nd Viscount had sold this in 1604, and both wrongly describe this manor as a former property of Calceto.) The confusion seems to have originated because of the former monastic ownership, and in 1584/5 an Exchequer Special Commission (P.R.O., E.178/3116) had reported the manors of Calceto, Selham, and 'Bourne alias Bywashe' as 'concealed lands'. The first of the two grants is dated five days before the 2nd Viscount Montague sold the manor of Bayham, and it may well be that the investigation of the title for this conveyance brought to light the alleged defects.).
(iii) the estates which Sir Anthony Browne had acquired before he succeeded his half-brother. In 1537 he had received from the Crown a grant to himself, his wife, and his heirs male (the only one in fact of all the various grants connected with the Cowdray estate which had this limitation, and a point which was to become of significance some 250 years later) of the manors of Poynings, Perching (in Edburton), Preston Poynings (in West Firle), Pangdean (in Pyecombe), Ashcombe (in Lewes), Waldron, and Chinting Poynings (in Seaford), all of which had recently been conveyed to the Crown by the Earl of Northumberland (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 12, pt. 2, p. 472; Cowdray MS. 914. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 15. The conveyance from the Earl of Northumberland to the Crown is enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/403, no. 11, and entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 13.). Then in 1538 there followed a grant from the Crown of the dissolved abbey of Battle, together with the manor and rectory, and unspecified lands, which seem to have included the manors of Agmerhurst (in Ashburnham) and Swyneham (in Ninfield and Hooe) (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 13, pt. 2, pp. 98-99. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 17v.), and in 1539 a similar grant of the manors of Barnhorne (in Bexhill) and Maxfield (in Guestling), two other properties of Battle abbey (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 14, pt. 2, p. 220. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 19v.). In 1541 Sir Anthony received a further grant from the Crown of properties which included the manor of Saddlescombe (in Newtimber) and the advowson of Hastings, St. Clement, in exchange for lands in Kent, and the surrender of the constableship of Harlech castle in Merioneth (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 16, p. 461. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 25. A deed of exchange between the King and Sir Anthony Browne, dated a few weeks before the letters patent, is entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 22.).
All the above properties, subject to the life interest of the Countess of Southampton in those of her late husband, came together therefore in 1542 in the hands of Sir Anthony Browne, and the three groups which formed the pattern of the estate for nearly two centuries--the lands in the immediate vicinity of Cowdray House, a block in the centre of the county in the area of Poynings, and further to the east those in the neighbourhood of Battle and Hastings--were already beginning to emerge.
Sir Anthony Browne continued in the royal favour, and his estates were further increased by the grants of the manor of Send in Surrey in 1544 (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 19, pt. 1, p. 616. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 29v. The manor of Ripley seems also to have passed by this grant, although it is not mentioned by name.), of Shulbrede priory with its demesne lands, of which he was already the lessee, in 1545 (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 20, pt. 1, pp. 304-305; Cowdray MS. 916. The original letters patent are apparently at Althorp House, Northamptonshire; see Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 77, p. 258. They are entered in B.M., Add. MS 31952, f. 37v.), and which would seem to have comprised what was subsequently called the manor of Linchmere and Shulbrede (Cf. V.C.H. Sussex, vol. 4, p. 69. This property had been granted by the Crown in 1537 to Sir William Fitzwilliam and his heirs male (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 12, pt. 2, p. 352; this however omits the words of limitation which have been supplied by reference to the original Patent Roll, P.R.O., C. 66/673, m. 21), and reverted to the Crown in 1542 upon the death of Fitzwilliam, then Earl of Southampton, without issue.), of some of the properties of the dissolved college of Hastings, including the advowson of Hastings, St. Mary, the rectory of Peasmarsh, and the advowson of West Thurrock in Essex, in 1546/7 (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 21, pt. 2, pp. 409-410. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 39v.); and of the manors of Verdley (in Fernhurst) and Lodsworth, with the Surrey manors of West Horsley and Effingham, and a house called 'le Neate' in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, Westminster, in 1547 (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1547-1548, pp. 240-241; Cowdray MS. 918. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 45.).
Sir Anthony died in 1548. The estates passed to his son, another Anthony Browne, who was raised to the peerage in 1554 as Viscount Montague (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1554-1555, p. 88. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 48v. The spelling 'Montague' has been checked with the original Patent Roll, P.R.O., C.66/885. A number of authorities (including G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vol. 9, pp. 97-103) give the form 'Montagu', but the 'Mo(u)ntague' used by all the Viscounts except the 4th, whose 'Montaigu' is clearly eccentric, would certainly appear to be preferable. It is perhaps unfortunate that the 'Lists of Creations of Peers and Baronets', which form Appendix No. 6 to the Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, should have given (p. 93) 'Montagu', but an explanatory note (p. 78) says clearly that 'the usually accepted spelling has been adopted as regards Titles'.), receiving in 1554/5 a grant from the Queen of further lands, including the two Surrey manors of Stockwell (in Lambeth) and Pirbright, for the better support of his new estate and rank (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1554-1555, p. 314. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 49v. Sir William Fitzwilliam in 1520 and Sir Anthony Browne in 1543 had each received from the Crown a grant for life of the manor of Pirbright (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 414; vol. 18, pt. 1, p. 284).). In 1556/7 he sold 'le Neate' (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/525, m. 23.), and then, during the following decade, seems to have begun a conscious policy for the disposal of his outlying estates, for he sold the manor of Swarraton in 1564/5 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/525, no. 41.), the manor of Boyatt (Licence to alienate granted in September 1566 (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1563-1566, p. 403 (not yet published, but page proofs available in the search room at the Public Record Office); the original roll is P.R.O., C.66/1022); final concord levied in Michaelmas Term 1566 (P.R.O., C.P.25(2)/208/8 & 9 Eliz. I Michaelmas).) and the manor of Shaw [Grange] (Deed enrolled on the Common Pleas Plea Roll, P.R.O., C.P.40/1253, deeds rot. 17v.), both in 1566, and the advowson of West Thurrock in 1567/8 (Licence to alienate granted in January 1567/8. (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1566----, p. 189 (not yet published, but page proofs available in the search room at the Public Record Office); the original roll is P.R.O., C.66/1044); final concord levied in Easter Term 1568 (shown in the contemporary index at the Public Record Office, although the original is missing).) On the other hand he clearly set out to consolidate his estates in the vicinity of Cowdray, indeed the solid block of territory in this area is essentially his creation (It is perhaps only right, if not strictly within our own rules of relevance, to mention that the 1st Viscount nevertheless sold in 1577 the manor of Heyshott (E. H. W. Dunkin (ed.), Sussex Manors, Advowsons, Etc., Recorded in the Feet of Fines, vol. 1 (Sussex Record Society, vol. 19), p. 208), which his grandfather, Sir William Fitzwilliam, had bought in 1534, and which is only a mile or so from Cowdray House.), for he purchased the manor of Pitfold in Frensham (Surrey) in 1566 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/707, no. 32, and entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 91v.), the manor and advowson of Bepton in 1568 (Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 37; entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 98.), the manor, park and advowson of Lurgashall in 1580 (Deed entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 153v. The advowson is not specifically mentioned, but seems to have passed under general wording.), the manor and advowson of Linch in 1581 (Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 44.), the manor and advowson of Cocking in 1583/4 (Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 48.), and the manor of Stedham in 1587 (E. H. W. Dunkin (ed.), Sussex Manors, Advowsons, Etc., Recorded in the Feet of Fines, vol. 2 (Sussex Record Society, vol. 20), p. 416.). In the meantime he had received in 1574/5 a grant from the Crown of River Park in Tillington and Lurgashall, together with the mansion house (Patent Roll, P.R.O., C.66/1129; entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 137v. The original letters patent are apparently at Althorp House, Northamptonshire; see Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 77, p. 258. The grant was subject to the life interest in the offices of parker, keeper and underkeeper of Sir Thomas Palmer, who died in 1582 (cf. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1557-1558, pp. 370-371). The reference to the Earl of Arundel in the footnote on p. 95 below of this Catalogue is unfortunately wrong, and must be deleted.), and then in 1588 bought a moiety of the manor of Clayton, which adjoined his estates in central Sussex (E. H. W. Dunkin (ed.), Sussex Manors, Advowsons, Etc., Recorded in the Feet of Fines, vol. 1 (Sussex Record Society, vol. 19), p. 105.), but parted with the rectory of Peasmarsh, probably in 1587 (Licence to alienate granted in September 1587 (Patent Roll, P.R.O., C.66/1303).), the rectory and advowson of Compton in 1588 (Licence to alienate granted in April 1588 (Patent Roll, P.R.O., C.66/1303); final concord levied in Trinity Term 1588 (E. H. W. Dunkin (ed.), Sussex Manors, Advowsons, Etc., Recorded in the Feet of Fines, vol. 1 (Sussex Record Society, vol. 19),p. 111).), and the manor of Waldron in 1590 (Recited in a pardon for alienation, Patent Roll, P.R.O., C.66/1350.).
The 1st Viscount died in 1592, leaving the bulk of his properties to his eldest grandson. Anthony, who succeeded him in the title. Waverley abbey and manor were however left to his second grandson, John, and the manor of Pirbright to his third grandson, William, with a proviso in each case against alienation (P.C.C. 22 Nevell; the probate copy is Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA67. Waverley abbey and manor were sold in 1605/6 by John Browne (deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/1845), and passed out of the family. Strangely enough, in view of the provision in the will against alienation, the 2nd Viscount was not a party to this transaction, but both he and John Browne were parties to a fine levied on the next conveyance of this property in 1608/9 (P.R.O., C.P.25(2)/359/6 Jas. I Hilary), although neither is mentioned in the deed of bargain and sale (enrolled on the Recovery Roll, P.R.O., C.P.43/104, deeds rot. 17v.). The rectory of Waverley presumably passed with the manor.), but Pirbright seems to have returned to the estate in 1610, when the 2nd Viscount joined William Browne in a conveyance to trustees (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2026. No trust is actually mentioned, but the purchasers acted as trustees for the Viscount on other occasions. William Browne is said to have been a Jesuit.). The manor of Ashcombe ceased to be part of the estate about the 1590s (The position is not entirely clear, for, although in 1591 the Crown granted the reversion of the manor to Thomas Sackville, 1st Baron Buckhurst (Patent Roll, P.R.O., C.66/1373, m. 24), this could not have become operative (could not in fact have done so for another 200 years) for the manor had been granted to Sir Anthony Browne and his heirs male in 1537. Nevertheless there would seem to have been some arrangement which we have not discovered, for the manor is not mentioned in the inquisition post mortem upon the 1st Viscount (P.R.O., C.142/235/110; for a copy, see Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 68), and Sackville, then 1st Earl of Dorset, certainly owned it at his death in 1608 (inquisition post mortem, Court of Wards and Liveries, P.R.O., Wards 7/34/202, which is far more legible than the original in Chancery, P.R.O., C. 142/311/110). Unfortunately F. W. T. Attree, Notes of Post Mortem Inquisitions taken in Sussex (Sussex Record Society, vol. 14), p. 72, does not list all Dorset's manors, and Ashcombe is concealed under a somewhat unsatisfactory 'etc.' The future 2nd Viscount had married Sackville's daughter in 1590/1 and one is tempted to think that the conveyance was part of the settlement, for the manor of Ashcombe adjoined the Sackville family's estates in the Lewes area.), and the 2nd Viscount disposed of the manors of Stockwell in 1598 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/1602.), Lewis Heath in 1604 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.43/86, deeds rot. 13.), and Bayham in 1606/7 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/1878.).
The next event of importance seems to have been the transfer by the 2nd Viscount in 1611 of a number of manors and other properties to trustees for sale to provide his daughters' portions and pay off his debts (The transfer was effected by two deeds respectively enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2091, no. 38, and P.R.O., C.54/2070, no. 12. Strangely enough no trusts are mentioned in either of these deeds, but are recited in the Act of 1624 mentioned below (and see Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 72). The debts included £6,000 due to the Crown. The whole transaction appears to have been unfortunate and to have led to litigation; see chancery decrees, P.R.O., C.78/533, no. 3, and P.R.O., C.78/205, no. 11.). The trustees accordingly sold the manors of Stedham in 1611 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2098, no. 23. This deed omitted mention of the rents, heriots and services of the manor, and a further deed (enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2182, no. 25) was necessary to rectify the mistake.), Wanborough (with the rectory) in 1612 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2145, no. 5. The manor of Wanborough was one of the two properties whose sale was to discharge the debt due to the Crown, but, although the consideration was slightly more than the necessary £6,000, only £4,000 went to the King to discharge an unspecified bond.), Dockenfield in 1613/4 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2155, no. 1.), Rustington in 1614 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2236, no. 39. The manor appears to be that of Rustington Eastcourt (see Cowdray MS. 306, f. 53), but we do not know how far this represents the medieval manor of Rustington.), and Bourne by 1616 (A court was held in April 1616 in the name of Nicholas Westbrooke (Diocesan Record Office, Chichester, Cap. I/38/1, f. 18v.).). The Viscount in the meantime sold the chapel of St. John in Midhurst, which was not vested in the trustees, in 1613 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2179, no. 12.), and subsequently the manors of Effingham, probably in 1617 (Licence to alienate granted in November 1615 (Patent Roll, P.R.O., C.66/2087, no. 90); final concord levied in Easter Term 1617 (P.R.O., C.P.25(2)/360/15 Jas. I Easter).), and Markwick and Monkenhook in 1622 (Deed enrolled on the Recovery Roll, P.R.O., C.P.43/157, deeds rot. 14v.). Fresh trustees of the remaining lands transferred in 1611 were appointed by private Act of Parliament in 1624 ('An Act for settling of certain Mannors and Landes of the Right Honourable Anthony Viscounte Mountague towardes the Payment of his Debts and the rayseinge of his Daughters Porc[i]ons' (Private, 21 Jas. I, no. 14 on the Chancery Roll, no. 48 on the Parliament Roll), apparently not in print.), and the manor of Chinting Poynings was sold in 1628 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2760, no. 29.).
The 2nd Viscount died in 1629, and was succeeded by his son Francis, who sold the manors of Preston Poynings in 1632 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2949, no. 14.), and Neatham in 1632/3 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/2920, no. 12.). At a slightly later date he apparently bought the manor of Lenham in Kent (No instrument of conveyance has been traced, but, although E. Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, vol. 2 (1782), p. 440, suggests that it was bought by the 2nd Viscount of Henry Wilford at the 'latter end' of James I's reign, it would appear from T. Thorpe, Descriptive Catalogue of the... Muniments of Battle Abbey, pp. 219-221, that Wilford was still interested in the property (which by error is described as in Essex) as late as 1635. There are no references to Lenham as such among the Cowdray MSS., but these facts are necessary to explain the presence of the general pardon to Henry Wilsforde [sic] (Cowdray MS. 19).). The Cowdray estate seems to have suffered severely during the Civil War. It was sequestered in 1643, and the House occupied by the parliamentary forces (For the history of Cowdray House during the period of the Civil War and the Commonwealth, see W. H. St. John Hope, Cowdray and Easebourne Priory, pp. 24-25, but he appears to have overlooked a few references in the Journals of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons.), and it may well have been these difficulties that caused the sale of the manor of West Horsley in 1655/6 (Original deed, Guildford Muniment Room, 45/1/14.). The manor of River in Tillington and neighbouring parishes was bought in 1662/3 (Deed copied by Sir William Burrell, B.M., Add. MS. 5690, f. 83v. It will be recalled that the Cowdray estate had had an interest in this area since 1574/5, when River Park, described as part of the manor of River, had been granted by the Crown to the 1st Viscount Montague, whilst in 1581 the same Viscount had received from the Crown the right to take wood within the manor and a grant of the iron there (omnes illas ferreas miner' nostras & lez vaines ferri vocat' Iron myne alias Iron Ore) for 21 years (P.R.O., Patent Roll, C.66/1202).), and the other moiety of the manor of Clayton in 1678 (E. H. W. Dunkin (ed.), Sussex Manors, Advowsons, Etc., Recorded in the Feet of Fines, vol. 1 (Sussex Record Society, vol. 19), p. 105.), but the manor of Pirbright is said to have been finally alienated in 1677 (V.C.H. Surrey, vol. 3, p. 364.). The rents which had been reserved by the Crown on some of its grants were bought out in 1672 (Deeds enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/4362, no. 4, and P.R.O., C.54/4364, no. 21.).
Francis, 3rd Viscount Montague lived until 1682. In his will he bequeathed the manor of Lenham to Henry, his second son, but the rest of the estate, like the title, passed to his eldest son, Francis (P.C.C. 136 Cottle; the probate copy is Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 125.). Henry however succeeded to both upon the death of his brother in 1708, and immediately seems to have disposed of the manor of Lenham, which had momentarily rejoined the estate (Elizabeth Hamilton in her will [P.C.C. 68 Smith] refers to her settlement in June 1709 of the Lenham estate, 'purchased of... Henry Lord Viscount Mountague and the Honourable Anthony Browne his Son and Heir Apparent'. Henry succeeded to the title in April 1708 and so must have sold Lenham between this date and June 1709.). He then sold the manors of Send and Ripley in 1712 (Deeds enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/5034, no. 19.), apparently to discharge the debts of his father and brother (Cowdray MS. 309; Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 164. Francis, 3rd Viscount Montague in his will [P.C.C. 136 Cottle; the probate copy is Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 125] had empowered his trustees to sell Ripley and Send to discharge his debts, which he put at £20,000. As early as 1664 these manors, with others, had been vested in trustees to pay the 3rd Viscount's debts; see the 'Act for vesting in Henry Arundel, esq., and his heirs, the trust in the estate of the lord viscount Montague which is vested in her Majesty by the attainder of John Caryll, esq., for high treason' (Private, 9 Anne no. 13).). Henry died in 1717, and his son and successor, Anthony, 6th Viscount, sold all the Battle and Hastings properties (including the manors of Battle, Barnhorne, Agmerhurst, and Swyneham, the rectory of Battle, and the advowson (presumably both St. Clement and St. Mary) of Hastings) in 1721 (Deeds enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/5192, no. 9. There are in all five deeds on this particular roll concerned with the conveyance. The manors of Hastings and Stone included among the properties sold are probably nothing more than dignified titles for some of the lands in the crown grant of 1546/7. The manor of Bexhill, also mentioned, is probably a myth.), in the hope that this would finally free the estate from debt (Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 180A.). The manor of Maxfield was apparently also sold about this time, although no conveyance has been traced (Cf. V.C.H. Sussex, vol. 9, p. 180.). Anthony had in 1720 married Barbara, daughter of Sir John Webb, 3rd bart., of Canford (Dorset) (For the marriage settlement, see Cowdray MS. 313.), and in 1743 the mansion house of Muntham and lands in Findon were purchased upon the trusts of the marriage settlement, but this property did not remain long in its new ownership, for it was sold in 1765 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C.54/6169, no. 15. This deed recites both the marriage settlement, and the purchase and settlement of the property in 1743.). In 1753 the manor of Burningfold in Dunsfold (Surrey) was likewise added to the estate (The conveyance is one of a group of title deeds to the manor deposited in W.S.R.O. on the very eve of our going to print, thereby causing a hasty rewriting of both text and footnote, but bringing a search of some two years or more to an eminently satisfactory conclusion. It appears from another of these deeds that the manor was bought with money that was the subject of a decision of the Court of Chancery, 29 March 1739, in a suit between Sir Thomas Webster and another v. Viscount and Viscountess Montague and Hon. Anthony Joseph Browne, but unfortunately we had not previously known of this, and time did not permit us to find out what it was all about.).
The 6th Viscount Montague died in 1767, and was succeeded by his son Anthony Joseph. The title deeds to the estate have survived from this time onwards (See below, p. xxx.), and its history can now be considered in greater detail. The 6th and 7th Viscounts each charged it heavily, both by family settlements and mortgages, so that upon the death of the latter in 1787 at least £46,600 was owing upon security of various properties (£18,000, £10,000, £6,000, £6,000, and £1,600 were still due upon mortgages (originally created by Cowdray MSS. 364, 323, 331, 323 (second endorsement), 351), and the portion of £5,000 charged upon the estates upon the marriage (some 25 years before) of Mary Browne (who had now been dead for almost 20 years) with Sir Richard Bedingfeld, 4th bart. (Cowdray MS. 321) was still unsatisfield, although admittedly it had not fallen due until 1767 (the other £5,000 did not become payable). In addition an annuity of £600 had now to be paid out of the estates to the Viscount's widow (Cowdray MS. 325.), and the Viscount in his will left all his real estate to Sir John Webb, 5th bart. (his mother's relation), and Sir Richard Bedingfeld, 4th bart. (his brother-in-law), in trust to raise by sale, mortgage or lease such sums as should be necessary to pay his debts (P.C.C. 84 Calvert; for the probate copy, see Cowdray MS. 368.). Accordingly, Sir Richard (the only acting devisee since Sir John declined the trust) (Cowdray MS. 369. This deed is enrolled on the Recovery Roll, P.R.O., C.P.43/818, deeds rot. 138.) sold, first, in 1788 the borough of Midhurst and about 150 burgage tenements for £40,000, of which £18,000 went to discharge a mortgage debt to Messrs. Drummond (Cowdray MS. 1948. This deed is enrolled on the King's Bench Plea Roll, P.R.O., K.B. 122/568, rot. 1410. For the mortgage to Messrs. Drummond, see Cowdray MSS. 364-367. It would appear that all the burgage tenements owned by the late Viscount were conveyed, but they included, amongst other things, the meadow land between Cowdray House and Midhurst town, and, on the next day, Sir Richard took a lease of this and other properties for 10,000 years (Cowdray MS. 623.), and, secondly, in 1790 the manor of Burningfold, with related property, for £14,021 (Deed enrolled on the Recovery Roll, P.R.O., C.P.43/829, deeds rot. 257.). One other mortgage, for £10,000, was paid off (Endorsement on Cowdray MS. 330.), but this only cancelled out a mortgage of the same sum raised to satisfy certain of the late Viscount's bond debts (Cowdray MS. 372.), so that when in 1791 the estate was reconveyed by Sir Richard Bedingfeld to George Samuel, 8th Viscount Montague, who had succeeded his father, a total of £28,600 charged upon the estate still remained outstanding (Cowdray MS. 378. The mortgages and other charges are listed in a schedule to this deed, but the marriage portion mentioned in footnote 7, p. xiii above, was however subsequently paid by the 8th Viscount out of his personal fortune, and not out of the estate (Cowdray MS. 332). By an oversight the lease of the burgage tenements mentioned in footnote 10, p. xiii above, was not assigned at the time of the reconveyance; in fact this did not happen until 1824 when assignment was made by Sir Richard Bedingfeld, 5th bart., as administrator of the goods of his father (Cowdray MS. 625). The omission was presumably discovered when the title to the estate was investigated in preparation for the settlement of that year (Cowdray MS. 397), and even so on the very next day a further £5,000 was raised (Cowdray MS. 379. This mortgage was ultimately used for the maintenance and education of an illegitimate son of the 8th Viscount (Cowdray MSS. 381-389), whose existence does not hitherto seem to have been noticed.).
The 8th Viscount died unmarried in 1793 as the result of a foolhardy escapade in Germany, and the title passed to Mark Anthony, his fourth cousin once removed, a friar at Fontainebleau in France, who forthwith |
| Custodial History | THE COWDRAY ESTATE RECORDS
Practically nothing is known about the early history of the Cowdray estate records, nor is it clear where they were originally kept. The deed of purchase of the manor and advowson of Bepton in 1568, for example, required the muniments to be delivered to Viscount Montague's house at Southwark (Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 37; entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 98), whilst that of the manor of Lurgashall in 1580 required the muniments to be delivered to Cowdray House (Deed entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 153v), but in considering these points it must be remembered that the vendor in the case of Bepton was an Essex man, whilst Lurgashall was bought from Sir Thomas Palmer of Parham. Nevertheless the 1st Viscount in his will (dated 1592) directed that all his letters patent, charters, deeds, muniments, court rolls and other writings should be kept in the Jewel House otherwise the Evidence House at St. Mary Overies, his residence in Southwark, 'where they nowe be and haue vsed to remaine' (P.C.C. 22 Nevell. The probate copy is Sussex Archaeological Trust Deed BA 67. The site of the priory of St. Mary Overies, Southwark, had been granted to Sir Anthony Browne in 1544 (Letters & Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 19, pt. 1, p. 637. The letters patent are entered in B.M., Add. MS. 31952, f. 35v.). For a brief account of this property, subsequently known as Montague House, see Bankside (L.C.C. Survey of London, vol. 22), pp. 43-44.). The house was sold by the 2nd Viscount and his trustee in 1625 (Deed enrolled on the Close Roll, P.R.O., C. 54/2637, no. 17. The property was among those transferred to trustees in 1611 (see above, p. xi), and the trustee in question had therefore been appointed by the Act of 1624.), at which time, if not earlier, the estate records must have been transferred to Sussex, either to Cowdray or Battle.
The next century and a half have unfortunately to be passed over in silence, and we know of nothing further to record until we find Sir William Burrell using the documents for his collections for a history of Sussex. He notes that in May 1781 he was transcribing from a deed in Lord Montague's possession (B.M., Add. MS. 5684, f. 71. The 'deed' was in fact the will of Michael de Ponyngges, 1368, now apparently at Althorp House, Northamptonshire; see Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 77, p. 256), and that in 1782 he copied the original counterpart of a deed of the lawday court among the muniments of the borough of Midhurst (B.M., Add. MS. 5690, f. 20v. Burrell does not say that the deed was at Cowdray House, and it might well have been in the offices of a local lawyer); he was apparently at Cowdray copying some of the records in 1790 (B.M., Add. MS. 5679, f. 44v) and again in March 1791 (B.M., Add. MS. 5679, f. 35; Add. MS. 5684, f. 57v.; Add. MS. 5689, f. 85v). In view of their subsequent history we may be grateful that he did so (Nevertheless it must be admitted that most of the records from which Burrell copied seem to survive somewhere).
The muniment room at Cowdray House was in the Kitchen Tower and so survived the fire which destroyed the main part of the building in September 1793 (W. H. St. John Hope, Cowdray and Easebourne Priory, pp. 82-83). No attempt was however made to rescue the documents which which for something like half a century seem to have been left entirely to the mercies of the weather and human intruders. In 1834, for example, manuscripts were said to be lying 'in heedless heaps on the floor, or... scattered on the shelves, and some, more ancient, and known by their rightful owner to be more curious than the rest, are set apart for the vacant gaze, and rude treatment of those who cannot read them' (Gentleman's Magazine (n.s.), vol. 1, p. 37. A similar account was published in the following year by H. D[udley], a pupil at Midhurst Grammar School, Juvenile Researches, p. 58 (or p. 57 in the second edition, also published in 1835), who noted that 'the floor [of the room above the kitchen] is covered with ancient deeds, valuable MSS., and private letters, which are suffered to lie about in wild confusion, submitted to the inspection of every visitor'. It must be remembered that W. S. Poyntz was still alive at the time). This public revelation clearly did not have the desired effect for in January 1845 it was reported to the Central Committee of the British Archaeological Association that a number of papers were stored in a room at Cowdray which had become ruinous and unsafe, that many of them 'having been carried away by persons who chanced to visit the ruins, the remainder had been thrown into the closets which surrounded the room, which were then nailed up, and the papers left to decay', and that since the state of the chamber was such that it must shortly fall, the documents would probably perish (Archaeological Journal, vol. 2, pp. 79-80; quoted by Mrs. Roundell, Cowdray: The History of a Great English House, p. 137). At the next meeting of the Committee, held the following month, Thomas King of Chichester 'stated that the said documents had been stored away in a detached dovecote, at the time of the conflagration, and that they related to the times of Elizabeth, James, and the Protectorate', and that the 'papers had been wantonly destroyed, and used as wrappers, or for kindling fires, but the Earl of Egmont has recently purchased the estate, and the ruins will no longer be accessible to mischievous idlers'. King seems, however, to have had no compunction about taking a few for himself (although he would no doubt have maintained that he was performing a public duty by securing their preservation), for the Committee was told that some were 'in his possession, one of which is a detailed account of expenses for liveries and tailors' work, during Elizabeth's reign: he has also court rolls and other documents, of the time of James I' (Archaeological Journal, vol. 2, p. 84; quoted (not very accurately) by Mrs. Roundell, Cowdray: The History of a Great English House, p. 137.).
In 1863, Sir Sibbald Scott wrote that 'some years ago... the floor [of the upper chamber in the tower at Cowdray House] was strewed with parchments and papers; some had been thrust by handfuls into the cupboards, and many were gathered in little heaps in corners where gusts of wind had probably driven them, and where the damp had caused them to adhere in masses, rendering many of them illegible, for small traces of glazing remained in the wide casements, consequently the rain could penetrate from any quarter; the ivy, moreover, had thrust its way to the ceiling, and jackdaws had evidently learnt to look upon this apartment as their own, and one well adapted for the education of the young.... But more ruthless still than the rain, or damp, or jackdaws, had been the spoiling hands of casual visitors, before the door had been closed to the public. The collectors of autographs and seals had in frequent cases torn off these appendages; doubtless many documents had been carried away wholly, but generally they were thus mutilated, and then flung down on the floor as valueless.' Sir Sibbald claimed to have seen 'obsolete leases', the oldest 'not earlier than the reign of Elizabeth', 'receipts for work done upon the estate, from A.D. 1500', and 'piles of letters to and from different members of the family', whilst 'Rolls of Courts Baron... were in abundance'. In a footnote to this article the author says that Alexander Brown, the agent, had had the papers cleared out soon after the sale of the estate (Sir S. D. Scott, 'On Some Old Papers Found in a Tower of Cowdray House', in Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 15, pp. 67-73; referred to (and quoted from) by Mrs. Roundell, Cowdray: The History of a Great English House, pp. 137-138, who says that Sir Sibbald's visit took place in 1856, but this does not fit in with the remark in the footnote. Sir Sibbald apparently removed some of the documents himself; see below, p. xxxi.). Brown, in fact, kept a number of them, and its seems almost certain that the documents which in 1912 passed to the Hon. W. Harold Pearson (later 2nd Viscount Cowdray) (W. H. St. John Hope, Cowdray and Easebourne Priory, p. 83. These documents are now catalogued as Cowdray MSS. 1-45.) came from this source since two of them are known to have been in his possession (The draft will of Sir David Owen (Cowdray MS. 12) and the Book of Orders of the 2nd Viscount Montague (Cowdray MS. 18); see Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 7, pp. 28, 173; vol. 15, p. 68: Mrs. Roundell, Cowdray: The History of a Great English House, p. 6. Nothing that we have said is in any way intended to reflect discredit upon Brown, who undoubtedly felt that he was preserving something of value, and indeed Mrs. Roundell says that the word 'Useless' which appears on the back of Owen's will in an early-nineteenth century hand was written by no less a person than the estate solicitor.). At a later date Mr. Pearson acquired further documents which may well have had the same origin (These documents are now catalogued as Cowdray MSS. 85-238, but it will be seen that some of them (e.g. Cowdray MSS. 105-108, 169, 181) clearly could not have come from the ruins of Cowdray House.).
The full force of this unhappy tale of neglect and mismanagement becomes apparent when we recall that only once was the estate sold between the late-twelfth century and 1843, and realize that its records ought therefore to stand comparison with those of any other estate in the kingdom - indeed, if we can believe Sir Sibbald and his fellow-critics, might certainly have done so (References to the estate will of course be found in appropriate official records, and searchers may like to be reminded of the detailed particulars of their properties, which the 5th and 6th Viscounts registered, as Roman Catholics, with the Clerk of the Peace; see W.S.R.O., QDR/5/WE1, WE2, WE5, WE6, W9, and East Sussex R.O., QDR/5/E3, E4, E7, E8.). Even more surprising and exasperating is the fact that the destruction of the estate records seems to have continued, for only one or two isolated documents of estate administration are left to testify to the ownership of Mr. and Mrs. Poyntz. It is clear therefore that a detailed history of the estate is now past praying for, and indeed we ourselves, when patiently searching the indexes at the Public Record Office in order to produce for this Introduction nothing more spectacular than the barest outlines of the acquisition and sale of some of the larger properties, have often felt that we had been sentenced to make bricks without straw to expiate the misdeeds of our predecessors. But whilst lamenting the losses (what, for example, became of the large vellum pedigree dated 1628, which Burrell saw?) (B.M., Add. MS 5689, f. 86v.), we must be thankful for two things. First that the court rolls survived, that the title deeds to the estate are apparently complete from 1717/8 onwards, and that the estate maps form a representative series, presumably because all these documents were at the time of the fire still required for current administration, and may not even have been in the muniment room at all; and secondly that the borough of Midhurst did not, as already mentioned, then form part of the estate, otherwise its records too might well have suffered. A number of documents do however exist elsewhere either in private or official custody:-
(i) some 300 deeds of the estate, 1505-1868, were presented to the Sussex Archaeological Society in 1934-35 by the Honorary Curator, the Rev. W. Budgen (Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 76, p. lxiv, where they are merely described as 'Two hundred and fifty deeds (Midhurst, Easebourne, &c.)', without further identification. These documents have been fully calendared, and a copy of the entries for those which specifically mention West Sussex is available in W.S.R.O.), and are now catalogued as Sussex Archaeological Trust Deeds BA 1-291. Unfortunately it is not known how Budgen acquired them. They have been subsequently deposited at WSRO.
(ii) a volume with the modern title of 'Title-Deeds of Viscount Montagu', sold, so Mrs. Roundell says, as waste paper (Cowdray: The History of a Great English House, p. 22.), was purchased by the British Museum (according to a note on the fly leaf) from Mrs. L. Danby on 13 May 1882, and is now catalogued as Add. MS. 31952. It contains copies of about 170 deeds and other documents dating from at least the thirteenth century to 1586/7, and although these naturally include letters patent, final concords and deeds which are enrolled in chancery or elsewhere, a large number, including copies of medieval deeds relating to Waverley abbey, would seem to be otherwise unrecorded. The volume has of course been of particular importance for the section of this Introduction dealing with the early history of the estate. Indeed since it is much more convenient to use than the originals, even where they are known to have survived, we have been at particular pains to indicate if it contains a copy of any document that we have had occasion to note. A full list of its contents is available in the West Sussex Record Office (W.S.R.O., MP 184.).
(iii) some 50 documents relating to Sussex, which clearly came from the Cowdray estate records, are now among Lord Spencer's muniments at Althorp House, Northamptonshire, presumably because of the marriage of Georgina Elizabeth, second daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Poyntz, with the future 4th Earl Spencer (L. F. Salzman, 'Sussex Deeds at Althorp', in Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 77, pp. 254-258, prints the entries for these documents from their calendar. There may, of course, be other Cowdray deeds at Althorp which do not relate to Sussex.).
It seems almost certain that other documents remain in private hands, and indeed 'the items of local interest', including the 'Inventory of Cowdray House in MS dated 168?', which formed lot 995 at the sale of the contents of Hill Top, Midhurst, in June 1958, clearly came from the estate archives (For the sale particular, see W.S.R.O., SP98. A letter, 'in the possession of Mr. Richard Fisher, of Hill Top near Midhurst', is printed by Mrs. Roundell, Cowdray: The History of a Great English House, pp. 103-104. Other documents printed by Mrs. Roundell, pp. 49, 96-99, and at one time apparently in the possession of Sir Sibbald Scott, have now found their way back to the estate records (Cowdray MS. 5128).).
In addition a small group of papers, mainly drafts, relating to the sale of the estate in 1843 is among the Marquess of Exeter's records at Burleigh House, Northamptonshire, presumably because of the marriage of Isabella, youngest daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Poyntz, with the 2nd Marquess (We are indebted to the Archivist, Northamptonshire Record Office, for calling our attention to these. Anyone wishing to see them should write to him in the first place.).
Other documents which at one time formed part of the Cowdray MSS. have of course been quite properly handed over upon the sale of some particular property (Quite by chance, for example, we discovered during the compilation of this Introduction that a number of court rolls of, and title deeds to, the manor of West Horsley, both before and after its sale by the 3rd Viscount Montague in 1655/6, are in the John Rylands Library, Manchester; see R. Fawtier, Hand-List of Charters, Deeds, and Similar Documents in the Possession of the John Rylands Library, [vol.] 1 (Documents of which the Provenance has been Ascertained), pp. 20-24 (reprinted from Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 8, pp. 276-280). And yet the conveyance of the manor by the Viscount, which chronologically should be among them, is in the Guildford Muniment Room.), and we should especially like to remind readers of the numerous records of the Battle area, transferred to the new owner in 1721, which were offered for sale by a bookseller in 1835 (T. Thorpe, Descriptive Catalogue of the... Muniments of Battle Abbey... Also, a Great Mass of Papers Relating to the Family of Browne, Ennobled as the Lords Viscount Montague. Not all the documents in the Catalogue, however, came from Cowdray, and a number of them relate to the Webster family, the subsequent owners of Battle abbey.). They have now found their way to the Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California (They were purchased by Mr. Huntington in August 1923; see Huntington Library Bulletin, no. 1, p. 74. For other accounts of these documents, see Sir W. Beveridge, 'Some Explorations in San Marino', in Huntington Library Bulletin, no. 2, pp. 67-85, and J. M. Vincent, 'The Battle Abbey Records in the Huntington Library', in American Historical Review, vol. 36, pp. 63-68, from all of which it is clear that the steward's account book, and probably therefore the other non-Battle records, is amongst them. The articles by E. Swift, 'Obedientiary and Other Accounts of Battle Abbey in the Huntington Library', in Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, vol. 12, pp. 83-101, and 'The Obedientiary Rolls of Battle Abbey', in Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 78, pp. 37-62, deal of course only with pre-dissolution records.). Amongst them are a few which do not relate to Battle (and which presumably ought never to have been handed over), including the deeds of Lenham (which we have had occasion to mention), and the estate steward's account book, 1657-1658 (A few of the interesting items from this book are given by Thorpe in the Descriptive Catalogue, pp. 159-160, some of which are repeated by Mrs. Roundell, Cowdray: The History of a Great English House, pp. 82-83, and E. V. Lucas, Highways and Byways in Sussex (1904), p. 7 (or p. 6 in subsequent editions).).
Very little use seems so far to be made of the Cowdray estate records. Sir William Burrell, as we have seen, copied a certain number of the documents into his MS. collections for a history of Sussex, which have proved a useful quarry for later searchers (These are now B.M., Add. MSS. 5679-5690. We have counted 99 occasions when Burrell quotes from documents in the Cowdray muniments (or in the possession of Viscount Montague, or identified by some such equivalent phrase). Of these 18 refer to the rape of Hastings (Add. MSS. 5679, 5680), 4 to the rape of Pevensey (Add. MSS. 5681, 5682) 7 to the rape of Lewes (Add. MSS. 5683, 5684), 1 to the rape of Bramber (Add. MSS. 5685, 5686), 10 to the rape of Arundel (Add. MSS. 5687, 5688), and 59 to the rape of Chichester (Add. MSS. 5689, 5690). These figures are only given, of course, as a rough guide, and too much should not be made of them, especially as one document may yield references for several parishes. The volume which is now B.M., Add. MS. 31952 (see above, p. xxx) has, for example, been quoted on 57 occasions, from 49 documents. Burrell had the helpful, if reprehensible, habit of leaving his initials on those documents which he had seen, if not actually used for his collections, and we have noticed these on Cowdray MSS. 6, 14, 20, 306, 4346-4349, and 4758, f. 21, and there may very well be others. (Burrell could not of course have seen Cowdray MS. 4758 at Cowdray, and one suspects that Cowdray MSS. 4346-4349 were also seen at Petworth after the sale of the burgage tenements to the Earl of Egremont, rather than at Cowdray.)), but the only writer who (as far as we know) claims to have used the Cowdray MSS. as such (distinct of course from any which had strayed from their proper custody), and then on two occasions only, is the nineteenth century historian of West Sussex, Dallaway (J. Dallaway, A History of the Western Division of the County of Sussex, vol. 1, pp. 204, 290. He has however used on several occasions Burrell's notes from the Cowdray records.). They do not seem to have been used by V.C.H. Sussex, which is particularly unfortunate, since the volumes so far published include that for the rape of Chichester where the bulk of the Cowdray estate is situated. |