The hundred of Easebourne
Introduction

Sponsor

Victoria County History

Publication

Author

L.F. Salzman (editor)

Year published

1953

Supporting documents

Page

40

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'The hundred of Easebourne: Introduction', A History of the County of Sussex: Volume 4: The Rape of Chichester (1953), pp. 40. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41692 Date accessed: 01 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

THE HUNDRED OF EASEBOURNE

CONTAINING THE PARISHES OF

BEPTON HEYSHOTT LODSWORTH
COCKING IPING MIDHURST
EASEBOURNE WEST LAVINGTON SELHAM
FERNHURST LINCH STEDHAM
GRAFFHAM LINCHMERE WOOLBEDING

At the time of the Domesday Survey Easebourne itself was represented by the vills of Buddington and Todham. (fn. 1) The large block of land (6,800 acres) immediately to the north, later forming the parishes of Fernhurst and Linchmere, is unaccounted for and must still have been unsettled woodlands. Lodsworth, for some unknown reason, was surveyed under Surrey. There was also a long narrow strip, 8 miles from north to south with an average width of ½ mile or less, constituting North and South Ambersham, which was a detached portion of the parish of Steep in Hampshire and formed part of that county until the 19th century, when the Ambershams were united respectively to Fernhurst and Selham. The parish of West Lavington was constituted in 1850 from a detached portion of the parish of Woolavington.

In 1278 it was shown that for the past hundred years the bailiffs of the Earls of Arundel had held the court of the Hundred of Easebourne under a certain ash tree at Midhurst. In that year at attempt to prevent this was made by certain persons to whom Sir John de Bohun had granted the lordship of the town of Midhurst. (fn. 2) It is possibly significant that on the Subsidy Rolls for 1296 Midhurst is called a 'hundred', (fn. 3) though on later occasions it is termed a 'borough'. (fn. 4) The site of the hundred court in later times is uncertain.

Although the hundred as a whole belonged to Earl Roger, and later to the honor of Arundel, Woolbeding, Iping, and Lodsworth were held in chief of the king in 1086 (fn. 5) and were therefore outside the rape.

Footnotes

1 V.C.H. Suss. i, 422–3.
2 Assize R. 914, m. 17 d.
3 Suss. Rec. Soc. x, 93.
4 Ibid. 115, 226.
5 V.C.H. Suss. i, 450–1.


<--Previous:
Trotton
Next:-->
Bepton