Felbridge & District History Group

The Tithing of Wardley

This is the un-illustrated web version of this handout. The illustrated version including colour plans of the locations discussed is available to purchase by using the 'Contact Us' link above. 

Warley was a manor in the Domesday book but is not identified as a manor after 1086. This document will look at what information can be found about the land it held and the people that lived there.

Warley is believed to represent the lands associated with Gullege and Tilkhurst Farms in the 19^th century[1] and its bounds are discussed later in this document. The early history of Warley is difficult to trace as there are very few surviving records and the use of Warley as a significant place-name has ceased by the mid 14^th century ultimately superseded by Gullege and Tilkhurst. Below is a collection of scattered references that provide some information about the manor and land holding, there are many gaps and it is hoped that other documents will come to light or other researchers will be able to add to this information.

Domesday

The Domesday entry for Warley is translated and expanded to read;

In the Hundred of East Grinstead, William holds Warley [Warlege in the original Latin manuscript] from the Count of Mortain. It contains 2 hides. They never paid tax. It is outside the Rape of Pevensey. In 1066, Wulfeva held it from King Edward as one manor. It has land for 5 ploughs. There are 3 villagers with 3 ploughs. From grazing 5 pigs, woodland 2 pigs. Its value in 1066 was 20s and it is now worth 15s[2].

Thus prior to 1066, Wulfeva had held Warley manor along with Burley (east of Turners Hill) and Horsted (Keynes). She also held Hamsey manor just north of Lewes which was her main manor, the other three being its outliers, which were close to the border with Surrey providing valuable woodland and grazing to the downland main manor much further south. The Domesday entries state that Warley, Burley & Horsted ‘paid no tax’, this means that their taxes were being accounted for at the parent manor of Hamsey, which was in the Rape of Lewes.

By 1086 the Rape of Pevensey was held by Robert, Count of Mortain, the half-brother of King William, it is William de Cahaines (Keynes) who holds Warley manor from the Count along with Horsted, which is named Horsted Keynes after him.

Interpreting Domesday land statistics is fraught with difficulty and Warley is no exception, the main reason being that most of the values given relate to taxable value rather than actual values. The 2 hides of land would equate to about 240 acres, but there is ‘land for 5 ploughs’ and this would equate to about 600 acres of cleared land to which the woodland and wastes could be added, clearly this far exceeds the stated size of the manor. The grazing and woodland is being recorded by the number of pigs the tenant has to provide in payment for it, rather than the number of pigs that are being kept or could be kept in the woodland.

The number of villagers recorded in 1086 is most likely to represent 3 family homesteads within the manor, each farming a portion of the land. 

Manorial History

Whilst the Domesday survey recorded Warley as a manor, there are no later documents that record it as a manor in its own right, nor do they use an alternative name such as Gullege manor or Tilkhurst manor. In 1574 we know that Gullege and Tilkhurst are held from John Culpepper’s manor of Bysshe Court for the rent of 14s and 2s 4d respectively[3]. Therefore tracing the early history of the manor of Bysshe Court could identify its inclusion in that manor at an earlier date.

La Bysshe was held by Bartholemew de Burghersh the elder in 1343[4], passing to his son of the same name in 1355 who was still holding it in 1361. In 1382 it was held by Sir Thomas Bysshe son and heir of John Bysshe or de la Bysh, who had married Isabel, heiress of the family of Burstow[5]. In 1407, William Crulling/Curling, a mercer of London[6], and Elizabeth his wife, sold it to Richard Wakehurst[7], who then granted it to his son John in 1445[8]. In 1452, John Wakehurst enfeoffed William Gainsford and John Wodye into the manor of Bysshe Court, this being the first time it is recorded by this name[9]. At the end of the 15^th century there is a Chancery case regarding the property within which it is stated by Richard Colpepper that part of the property of Richard Wakehurst that was subsequently enfeoffed to Gainsford and Wodye was ‘the manor of Warelye.... parcel of the manor of Bysshecourt’[10].

The property transferred in 1445 must therefore include the lands of Warley for it to have been held by Richard Wakehurst. Unfortunately the charters and feet of fines recording the above transfers do not name Warley, but it seems most likely that the manor of La Bysshe in 1343 already included the Warley lands in Sussex as the description given in the fine[11] was;

A messuage and 4 carucates [480 acres] of land 16 acres of meadow 200 acres of pasture 120 acres of wood and 52s rent in Horne and Lingfield in Surrey and 50s rent in Couelyngleye, Mesewell and Feldebrigge in Sussex. The premises with the homage and services of Roger Huse, Knight, Roger de Dalynrugge, John de Haselden, William de Couelyngleye, Richard de Haselden and Galfrid de Smytheford.

Whilst the Sussex rental does not contain a person named War(d)ley, it does include Cuttingly [Couelyngleye] and Roger Hussey, knight, and Galfrid de Smithford held the land immediately between Gullege farm and Hophurst Hill, whilst the Haseldens must be associated with the area of Hazleden Farm which abuts the southern boundary of Tilkhurst.

The Sussex rents also include Mesewell and Felbridge, the first of these could be Miswell in Turners Hill which was a freehold of Bysshe Court in 1686[12]. The only other lands within Sussex listed in the various Bysshe Court rentals are ‘Crabb Mead’, ‘Riddens’, ‘Gullege, Cockmans and Cockmans Mead’. Within the 19^th century Surrey lands is a property called ‘Felbridge Land’ or ‘Felbridge alias Chartham’[13] which is the same land held by Sands/Sonds from Imberhorne Manor and is located straddling the county boundary north of what is now the Felbridge Hotel. As it straddles the boundary, this could also have been part of the Sussex rental in 1343. Felbridge Land only has a rental of 2s, whilst Gullege & Courtfield are 14s[14], Tilkhurst 2s 4d[15], Crabmead 3s 4d and The Riddens 3s 6d, thus within the 50s total rent in Sussex it seems likely that Warley, generating about half the rent, is going to be in the description, so it must either be ‘Felbridge’ supported by the piece of common land to the north of Warley being called Felbridge Heath in the Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst Court Book; or that Warley has merged with the adjoining holding of Cuttingly and is now also known by that name, and thus ‘Cuttingly’ would now hold lands in both Worth and East Grinstead.

John Alfrey also purchases property from William Crulling and Elizabeth his wife in 1406 described as a messuage, 46 acres of land, 10 acres of Wood and 10d rent in Estgrenstede[16]. This has to be land within the manor of Bysshe Court as William Crulling, mercer of London, does not hold other land in East Grinstead.

Cuttingly in Worth is held by the Dean of South Malling in 1444[17], but in 1408 it still appears to be part of the same lands that were originally held by Bartholemew de Burghersh, as Richard Wakehurst purchases the following from William Crulling and Elizabeth his wife;

a messuage, 4 carucates of land, 20 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture, 120 acres of wood, 60s rent in Hoorne, Lingfeld, Wolkestede, Tanrigge and Burstowe in Surrey, and 52s rent in Estgrenstede and Worthe in Sussex; premises with homages and services of Philip Seintcler, Knight, and Margaret his wife, Thomas Salman, John Alfray, Walter Hoke, John Hoke, William Haseldene, Alice late the wife of John Haseldene, William Telghurst, John Telghurst, William Cokeman, John atte Mulle and Walter Smyth[18].

The rental in Sussex has gone up by 2 shillings and it lists the homage of Sir Philip Syntclare who held Cuttingly after Roger Hussey. Therefore it seems likely that the Cuttingly lands in Worth parish were gifted to the Dean of South Malling between 1408 and 1444 by the Wakehurst family. Whilst the surnames Couelyngleye and Smythford do not appear in the 1408 fine, we do have William Telghurst [Tilkhurst] and another man of the same name was the tenant of Courtfield in 1490[19]that could relate to Smythford Court, which was named in a Hedgecourt lease[20], and Walter Smyth could be descended from Geoffrey de Smythford as Walter had lately been the freeholder of Smythford when his widow Margaret sold the freehold to John Comport Junior in 1413[21].

We also have William Cokeman, having already identified that Cockmans and Cockmans Mead are lands within the Bysshe Court rentals, these lands are likely to be those purchased by John Cockman in 1357 described as a messuage, 83 acres of land, 3 acres of meadow, 8 acres of Wood in Estgrenstede[22]. This also has to be the land that Richard and Thomas Alfray release their rights to John Wodye in 1479 called Cokemannys and Mathewys that latelybelonged to John Morys and Agnes his wife in East Grinstead[23]. Mathews Barn is shown on the 1795 Gardner & Gream map of Sussex lying to the north west of Gullege, its location does not overlay onto the modern Ordnance Survey very well but is closest to the later location of Leigh Wood Yard, to the east of Greenfield Shaw, which is the only building in that vicinity on the draft Ordnance Survey map of 1805-8[24].

Considering its Domesday connection with Horsted Keynes, it is interesting to note that the manor of Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst held the strip of common land in East Grinstead parish north of Gullege between Felbridge Water and the County boundary up to the boundary on the east with Imberhorne manor, see the map on page 20. This would appear to be common grazing land for the manor of Horsted Keynes before it merged with the manor of Broadhurst.

Warley in surviving records

There are very few mentions of Warley/Wardley within the surviving records, but it does appear in the early assize rolls. These rolls record cases heard before the Court of Assize by judges who travelled across England. There are several copies of the rolls for the same court such that one case can appear in several documents with differently spelt names.

The 1248 the assize records Richard de Werlage in the Hundred of Denne[25]. In 1279, the assize records Walter de Wardlegh in Buttinghill Hundred[26] and in 1288, Robert de Warleye is listed as a juror for the hundred of Riston & Denne[27].

The 1288 rolls, with alternative spellings in brackets, record;

In the Hundred of Riston & Denne. Roger, son of Richard Cocus, not wishing to cross a certain dyke full of water in the vill of Horstede fell in it and drowned himself. No one is suspected for it. Judgement, misadventure. And Robert atten Esse (atte Esche), the first finder, does not come [to the inquest] nor is he suspected and was attached by John de Walebeche (Wallebrech’) and John atte Hecche (Heath), therefore in mercy. And Brunyng de Conuhugelegh’ (Couelingelegh), John de La Gulache(Culache), John de Wardelegh’ (Wardele) and William de Wardelegh’ (Wardele), four neighbours, do not come nor are they suspected. And Brunyng was attached by Richard Willard (Wolleward) and Robert de Sandhull’, therefore in mercy. And John de La Gulache (Culache) by John le Lung (Long) and Thomas Odyun (Odun), therefore in mercy. And John de Wardele by John de Fershelegh’ (Ferisfeud) and John atte Berne, therefore in mercy. And William de Wardelegh’ (Wardele) by Phillip le Turnour (Suur) and William Norman de Wardelegh’ (Wardel), therefore in mercy[28].

Those that have pledged their support for the persons who did not come to the inquest are each fined 5s.

Whilst the actual events leading up to Roger Cocus’ death by drowning are potentially not as innocent as those stated by the jurors, this document gives us an insight into the individuals who are pledging their support for each other, and are therefore likely to be closely associated. Thus we have 5 groups of men;

Robert atten Esse (atte Esche), John de Walebeche (Wallebrech’) and John atte Hecche (Heath).

Brunyng de Conuhugelegh’ (Couelingelegh), Richard Willard (Wolleward) and Robert de Sandhull’.
John de La Gulache (Culache), John le Lung (Long) and Thomas Odyun (Odun).
John de Wardele, John de Fershelegh’ (Ferisfeud) and John atte Berne.
William de Wardelegh’ (Wardele), Phillip le Turnour (Suur) and William Norman de Wardelegh’ (Wardel)

Here we have the recognisable names of Walesbeech (beneath Wierwood Reservoir), Cuttingly (Couelingelegh), Willard (Willard’s Bridge south of Standen), Sandhill (in Turners Hill), Oddyens (in Horsted Keynes) and three people of Wardley. John de La Gulache/Culache is discussed later in this document. Wardley is most likely to be a group of dwellings with Robert, John, William of Wardley and William Norman of Wardley all being listed in documents written in 1288. Whilst the first three could all be family members in a single household, William Norman does not fit that description; and as William Norman pledges for William de Wardley and incurs a fine of 5s for his non-attendance, a very considerable sum in the late 13^th century, it is unlikely that he is merely a servant in William de Wardley’s household.

The 1296 lay subsidy records William de Wardlegh paying 2s 2d in the Denne division of the Rushmonden hundred in the Rape of Pevensey[29]. This same division also records John de Berewyk, Alan' ater Coloche, William de Kouelyngelegh and Walter atte Broke the last two of these also being listed in the 1314 extent of Cuttinglye below.

The extent of the manor of Collingelegh [Cuttinglye] for 1314[30] was witnessed by John Walranud, Richard le Curuour, Walter atte Broke, William le Hinall, Richard Boletie, Radm’ de Srofeld, John Ostern, William de Warlegh, Robert de Farlegh, Walter atte Heggecort, William de Telghurst and William de Colingelegh. Tilkhurst (Telghurst) is first recorded in the assize rolls of 1262[31] and is found several times during the 13^th and into the 15^th century[32] and continues to the current day being to the south east of Gullege. This appears to be the dominant property in the 14^th century and into the 15^th century after which Gullege appears.

This extent of 1314 is the last identified record for anyone ‘of Wardley’, thus the specific place-name has become extinct at the start of the 14^th century. It is very unlikely that the area has been deserted and therefore it must have become known under a different name. Warley continues as the name of a tithing in the hundred of Danehill Horsted and P.D. Wood identified that the boundary of the tithing (discussed below) is probably very similar to the boundary of the Domesday manor of Warley[33].

At the court of the manor of South Malling-Lindfield on 3 October 1435 John Alfray & John Hatcher de Golocher are listed for default[34]. John Alfrey holds lands called Hornesland which is at Crawley Down, John Hatcher is associated with lands later called Hatchers within Worth parish that lay to the north of what was later Fen Place Mill Pond against the parish boundary with East Grinstead. The Hatcher family also held Morehall a freehold in Imberhorne Manor in 1566, it abuts Hatchers but on the East Grinstead side of the parish boundary and also abuts the lands of Gullege & Tilkhurst.

Michael Leppard argued that the development of the name Warlege into Gullege is philologically unsound[35], however it would seem plausible that La Gulache/Le Culache/ater Coloche/Golocher could be precursors to the name Gullege. In particular that it has the definitive article ‘the’ in front of the name, which matches to ‘Le Gullege’ as recorded in 1557[36], 1574[37] and 1611[38], noting that ‘atter’ is the Middle English reduction of the Old English ‘at the’ in the feminine case[39]. The use of the definitive article implies that ‘Gullege’ is considered an object rather than a place at this early period, as is the case of John of the brook, or John of the wood compared with William of Telghurst or Robert of Farlegh.

The suffix of Gulache/Culache could be –lache/-leche meaning slow sluggish stream or muddy hole/bog[40] which are feminine nouns supporting the use of ‘ater’ Coloch, this would leave the prefixes Gu- and Cu- which are phonetically similar making it impossible to tell which is the original form and which is a miss-heard version. The two options would be cū- meaning cow or gū- (gēo-) meaning former, previously or before[41]. Alternatively the prefix could be the Old Norse Gull- meaning gold[42] with a suffix from Old English æcer or Old Norse akr meaning cultivated piece of land[43] from which the quantity acre is derived. This last option seems less likely as modern forms derived from it often retain a strong -aker ending such as Halnaker in Sussex; but it is interesting that the fields to the north of Gullege include yellow (gold) clay that farmer Brian Emmett said were more productive than his south facing fields which contain blue clay. The location of ‘La Gulache’ in the 13^th century is unlikely to be the site of the current house called Gullege which stands prominently upon the ridge.

The first confirmed reference for Gullege in its modern form is ‘Le Gullage’ in 1557 within the inquest into the idiocy of Henry Alfrey[44], the deed of 1531 whereby Edmond Alfrey, gent, of East Grinstead demises his house called Gullege to William Sodone, yeoman[45], has not yet been found and examined. The etymology of Le Gullege is probably beyond determination with only a few early references, but these potential earlier forms may prompt further discussion on the subject.

The Tithing of Wardley

Sussex was divided into Rapes, our local area being in the Rape of Lewes or the Rape of Pevensey with East Grinstead in Pevensey and Worth in Lewes. The Rape was divided into Hundreds which were the principle boundaries used for taxation purposes in the post conquest period. The hundreds were divided into tithing’s which was originally a group of 10 households that were collectively responsible for each other’s behaviour. The tithing elected a headborough as their leader who was required to attend the Hundred Courts twice a year and report on the behaviour of his tithing. The Hundred Courts handled matters such as the condition of ditches, watercourses, obstruction of roads and petty crimes. The court levied fines against persons who had not complied with their duties or were otherwise found guilty. In Sussex, the tithings were regularly known as boroughs although this causes confusion with the larger settlements (townships) that sent representatives to parliament which were also known as Boroughs.

In the 13^th century, there were the separate half hundreds of Riston and Denne, which later combined and were known as the hundred of Rushmonden. By the 1270’s this area was administered by three separate hundred courts Rushmonden, Danehill Sheffield and Danehill Horsted[46]. The assize courts of 1248 and 1262 make separate entries for the [half] hundreds of Riston and Denne, but from 1279 they only ever record entries for the hundred of ‘Riston & Denne’ not reflecting the subdivision of Danehill hundred courts[47]. Wardley is one of the ten tithings within Danehill Horsted.

A survey of the ‘borough of Wardeley’ is recorded in 1563[48] and there is a later copy which has some spelling differences[49]. The 1563 document reads;

The Borrowghe of Wardeley lyeng within the parrishe of Estgrensted within the hundred of Danyell Horsted member unto the Hundred of Ryshtmonden

Robert Tye constable
George Harman	Jur[ors]
Bartholimewe Harman
Richard Alferey

 Which say apon theire othes 

The boundaŕ of the said Borowghe

Beginneth at Sherestone and from thence Leading by the wey to the corner of Imberhornewoode as a Bancke dothe leade on theste And from thence leadith by the mannor of Imberhorne unto Depe lane from the said lane to Jallye lane upon the Sowthest and from thence to a parcel of grounde called hopers

Memoranđ that within the said Burrowghe is one commen called Fellbridge Commen which belongith to the manner of Broodeherste lieng in the parishe of Horsted Kaynes 

The boundary of East Grinstead Hundred is also surveyed in 1563 and provides another description of the route relating to the boundary near Wardley;

...to a pece of lande called the Shellvys And so leding to a whaple wey which leadith to Benkes Gate And so from there leding thorowghe a meadowe of Jenkyns unto a brooke callid Stonebrook And so fourth unto a wey that leadith frome Grenested to Turnershill And so frome the same wey thorowghe the lande of John Bysshe And so from thence unto a whaplewey which leadith frome Grenestede to Crawles Downe And so frome the same way leding thorowgh a felde of Hachers unto to the lande of the Gullege And so from thence leding towerdes the northe by a whaplewey which goeth to the Riddens And so leading thorowghe the Riddens unto a woode of Imberhorne and so compasing the woode of Imberhorne And so leading from the said woode to Fellbriggeheath And from thence ...

The bounds of Wardley tithing have been interpreted and mapped by P.D. Wood[50] and the bounds of East Grinstead Hundred by Michael Leppard[51], both using a 1579 survey very similar to the 1563 version above. I agree with their identified boundary with respect to Wardley, but can add a few additional points in confirmation. The sherestone that stood where the parish boundaries of Horne, Worth and East Grinstead all meet is well documented in the court books of Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst[52] as it used as a reference point for the properties enclosed during the 17^th century out of their manorial common lands called ‘Felbridge Heath’ later entries call it ‘Hedgecourt Common’. The manorial boundary bank between Imberhorne and Warley survives in significant lengths all of which align with the 1841 tithe boundary of Gullege and Tilkhurst Farms[53]. Deep Lane is not a specific name of a lane but refers to a hollow way of which there are several in and around Imberhorne, Tilkhurst and Gullege. However, following the manorial boundary bank of Imberhorne leads to the hollow way that is still visible as an extension of Imberhorne Lane (close to the Tilkhurst water tower) and then passes through Tilkhurst’s grounds before becoming the south east boundary of Tilkhurst. The land called Riddens is held of the manor of Bysshecourt for the rent of 3s 6d in

1637[54] and can be traced through their court records to align with the stated owner and occupier in the 1842 tithe. The hollow way across the Riddens is clearly outside the boundary of Tilkhurst and thus would have

been upon the waste, this waste is probably the common land at Tilkhurst referred to in the court rolls of Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst in 1563 where ‘the homage present that land called Leyhoth Fyldebridge and Tylkhurste in Weste[sic] Grinsted is waste and common land of the manor’[55].

Although the land at Tilkhurst was actually held of the manor of Bysshecourt, there being no other court entries in Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst for land at Tilkhurst. Therefore it is most likely that the Riddens was originally waste attached to the manor of Warley as it all falls under the later manor of Bysshecourt. Whereas Felbridge Heath is held by the manor of Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst and there is no evidence it was used by the manor of Warley or Bysshecourt thus supporting P.D. Wood’s proposal that the northern boundary of the Domesday manor of Warley was Felbridge Water. However, Felbridge Heath is included within the later tithing of Warley.

Using the East Grinstead Hundred boundary which is walked in the opposite direction, the ‘wood of Imberhorne’ must be The Upper Wood shown on the map in the 1597/8 Buckhurst Terrier[56], it is noticeable that the Buckhurst Terrier shows most of the west boundary of Imberhorne Farm was wooded except for Whitefield and Westfield which would only be about one quarter of the entire boundary and therefore making sense of the East Grinstead Hundred boundary going around (compassing) the woods of Imberhorne to get to Felbridge Heath.

At the south west corner of the Riddens is another hollow way ‘Jallye Lane’, forming the southern boundary of Tilkhurst in the tithe. The Wardley survey states that from this lane you go to the land called Hopers, as Wardley is said to be within the parish of East Grinstead, then it has to be assumed that the parish boundary between Worth and East Grinstead forms part of the boundary of Wardley. The 1840’s tithe maps of Worth and East Grinstead show their joint boundary as following natural landscape features except at Fen Place Mill and at the southern end of Hophurst Farm at a place called Crabs Mead. In these two locations, the parish boundary ceases meandering and takes straight line routes crossing through the fields, irrespective of their hedges and ditches. This appears to be a late 18^th or early 19^th century alteration of the boundaries and is akin to the boundaries created by surveyors responsible for the early common enclosures. I believe the earlier parish boundary followed the watercourse and passed to the west of Crabs Mead. Therefore where the hollow way crosses the stream you would follow the stream north to the land of Hophurst Farm which is the field abutting Crabs Mead, and Hophurst was called Hoppers in the 1560 court of South Malling-Lindfield Manor[57].

The East Grinstead Hundred survey provides more detailed information at the south west corner of Wardley and can be combined with the detailed bounds of the freeholds of the manor of Imberhorne in 1566[58] as this manor held the properties in this area. The extract above starts at the land called ‘Shellvys’, this is Shelves alias Medway held by Thomas Bankes at his death in 1592[59] and described as the part of his lands (Tickeridge) that lies within East Grinstead parish, the lands called Tickeridge are stated to be solely in the parish of West Hoathly. Jenkins Mead can be traced from the 1698 rental to plot 1240 on the East Grinstead tithe, therefore the stream running east-west, north of Tickeridge, is ‘Stonebrook’ which also forms the northern boundary for the parish of West Hoathly to the west. Using the stream as the boundary would mean the ancient parish boundary lies east of the 1841 boundary. Following this stream east leads to the Turners Hill Road, to the sharp bend that is now just before the railway bridge when coming from East Grinstead. Following the road north, the land of John Bysshe is ‘Morehall parcel of tenement at Fen’ and we follow the stream to pass through his land but only a short distance before we reach the lands of Hatcher and Banks so we have to turn east and join the lane north of Hailey Farm. This is therefore the lane from East Grinstead to Crawley Down, which crosses Yawley Bridge north east of Fen Place Mill and continues to Burleigh House and beyond to Crawley Down. Perhaps ‘Jalley Lane’ is intended to mean Yawley Lane as the northern boundary of Hazleden farm is stated as ‘the road from Tilkhurst to Yawley Bridge’. The field of Hachers is ‘Moorehale’ which was 6 acres held by William Hatcher that you have to cross to get to the south west corner of the lands held by Henry Alfrey (Gullege lands). The route of the hundred boundary north of Tickeridge is close to the stream although the description follows the ‘roads’, it seems more likely that the ancient parish boundary was the watercourse in these locations. 

Local Land Disputes

There are several land disputes relating to the owners and occupiers of the lands within and around the tithing of Wardley, below are the summaries of the complaints submitted to the courts and the subsequent answers of the defendent(s). Unfortunately the verdicts of these courts are all lost, so we do not directly know the outcome of each case, there are also cases for which there are only broad dates. We also need to remember that parties in these cases are likely to have exaggerated their statements or even lied!

c1450-1479 Wodye v Alfrey[60]

John Wodye complains that John Morys and Agnes his wife were seised of 2 tenements 23 acres of land and 6 acres of meadow in East Grinstead and then enfeoffed Richard Alfrey with the intent that he would enfeoff the property when required to such person or persons that John Morys and Agnes specify. John Morys and Agnes then sold the premises to John Wodye and heirs but Richard Alfrey refused to hand over the property. There is no answer of Richard Alfrey.

In 1456, John Morys and Agnes granted a messuage, 66 acres of land, 5a of meadow and 2a of wood in East Grinstead to John Wody[61]. Whilst this is much larger than the property John Wodye is trying to recover in the court case, it could be that Richard Alfrey is only retaining a part of this larger holding.

In 1458, Richard Alfrey granted property to John and Thomas Alfrey, John Morys, Andrew Hasilden, Richard att Mell and John Stanlee. Richard Alfrey says he had received the property as a gift from John Morys and Agnes his wife[62]. This could be the same property that John Wodye is trying to recover from Richard Alfrey in the case above.

In November 1478, Richard Alfrey, son and heir of John Alfrey releases all his rights in a toft and a meadow called Wardelysmede containing 3½ acres in East Grinstead to John Wodye[63] and in 1479 Richard and Thomas Alfray release to John Wodye their rights in premises called Cokemannys and Mathewys in East Grinstead latelybelonging to John Morys and Agnes his wife in East Grinstead[64]. Potentially these releases are the outcome of a successful case brought by John Wodye against Richard Alfrey as they both relate to land previously held by John Morys and Agnes his wife. We know that Cockmans is held as part of Gullege by 1609[65] although no document exists to demonstrate how it was recovered by the Alfrey family, thus the release of Wardleys Mead does not prevent it being recovered and part of Gullege by the 17^th century.

John Alfrey is listed in the court books of the manor of South Malling-Lindfield in 1435 and Richard Alfrey is listed in 1486 holding unnamed land at Crawley Down[66], the manor only held land in the parish of Worth so this is not the land listed above, but it does indicate a greater extent of their land holding. From at least 1550, the Alfrey family held Hophurst Farm in Worth abutting the west boundary of Gullege[67]. The deeds for Hophurst Farm state the property name as ‘Hophurst alias Wallage’ in 1819[68].

1486-1515 Tracy v Gainsford[69]

The bill of complaint for this case has been torn away on the right side so the last few inches of each line are lost. Henry Tracy says that John Wakehurst held the manor of Bysshecourt and the manor’s lands in East Grinstead. That upon the marriage of Alice Gainsford and John Wakehurst there was an agreement that 24s per annum profit of the manor’s lands were to be granted to Alice for her life and after her death to John Wakehurst and his heirs. John Wakehurst had since died and Alice had married Henry Tracy, but she had not received the profits of the manor’s lands that she was due for her life.

John Wodie replies that Richard Wakehurst did hold the manor lands referred to by Henry Tracy and granted them to his son John, and when John Wakehurst was a ‘learner at court in London’ he gave possession of it to John Wodie his clerk, afterwards John Wakehurst granted possession to William Gainsford and John Wodie and their heirs with the rents going to John Wakehurst and his heirs. Nicholas Gainsford, brother of William Gainsford, deceased, answers similarly regarding how he came to hold the property.

Richard Culpepper then submits a very long statement to the court which includes the descent of the Wakehurst family from Richard Wakehurst down to the two Wakehurst sisters Margaret and Elizabeth who were married to brothers Richard and Nicholas Culpepper. He also states that the certain land and tenement in the parish of East Grinstead that Henry and Alice mention in their bill of complaint is ‘the manor of Warelye’ which has always been known as a parcel of the manor of Bysshecourt. He values the retention of profits of the manor at £180 and says that any money paid by William Gainsford to the said Alice was only out of fear that otherwise he would be sued by her for her full dues.

We know that in 1497 William Gage (Lord of the manor of Hedgecourt) holds 50 acres of land in East Grinstead for which he pays the rent to Henry Tracy[70], so it would appear that Henry Tracy won the right to at least some of the rent that Alice was due.

1558-1566 Alfrey v Infield[71]

John Alfrey son and heir of John Alfrey who was the brother and heir of Peter Alfrey states that a John Alfrey held two messuages and 400 acres of land in East Grinstead and Worth long before 1536 [it was in 1525[72]] and enfeoffed Thomas Infield, William Mercer, Richard Haselden and Edward Primer clerk to have the messuages and land to them and their heirs with rents to Peter Alfrey his near cousin and godson. Long before 1536 Edmund Alfrey (my grandfather) evicted Thomas Infield, William Mercer, Richard Haselden and Edward Primer by force and took occupation of the premises himself. In his lifetime Edmund granted part of the property to his son Richard Alfrey and another part to his son Henry Alfrey. Henry Alfrey was found by an inquisition to be an idiot and his property passed to his brother James Alfrey. James Alfrey has since died and John Alfrey (my father) was his brother and heir. Peter Alfrey died in 1536 and the proper use of the property descended to John Alfrey (my father). All of the feoffees had died except Thomas Infield and he held the sole title. Upon Thomas Infield’s death he passed sole title to his son Richard Infield. My father requested Richard Infield to re-enter the property by force to restore the rightful possession, but he would not do so. Upon my father’s death the property wrongly held by Edmond Alfrey and the proper use granted to Peter Alfrey descended to me, except the portion granted to Richard Alfrey which he still holds.

Richard Alfrey states that Edmund Alfrey was lawfully seized of the 84 acres of lands known as Homelands, Crabbegrove, Crabbegrove Meads and Butlers and conveyed the same to Richard by a deed dated 1541/2. Richard Infield confirms the facts presented by John Alfrey and states he will do as the court wishes.

The lands listed by Richard Alfrey as held by him since 1541/2 are likely to be Tilkhurst as this matches the date of the deed for Tilkhurst being transferred to him from Edmond[73]. Henry Alfrey held the following lands at his death in 1573; a tenement called Le Gullege with land pasture wood and underwood there and a parcel of land situated in Courtfield together with a certain parcel of land called Wardleigh and Frenchlond in East Grinstead and a certain tenement called Tilkherst, they are all held of the manor of Byshecourt except Heathlond which is held of the manor of Sheffield-Grinstead[74]. These lands excluding Tilkhurst were similarly identified in the inquisition into Henry Alfrey’s idiocy held in 1557[75].

Thus it is clear that ‘2 messuage and 400 acres of land in East Grinstead and Worth’ that John Alfrey held in 1525 must include Gullege and Tilkhurst and the lands known as Wardleigh, Frenchlond and Courtfield. 

1608 Sackville Turner v Edward Alfrey[76]

There are two cases in this dispute as Sackville Turner gent of East Grinstead sent his complaint against Edward Alfrey gent of East Grinstead to Chancery Court, but Edward Alfrey had already sent his complaint against Sackville Turner to the King’s highest Court of The Star Chamber.

Sackville Turner says that he holds a certain tenement called Cockmans alias Leare in the parish of East Grinstead and that for many years he and his formers have had sufficient common for their cows, sheep and pigs to graze upon the said farm of Cockmans and upon a parcel of common in East Grinstead called Leighoath containing by estimation 24 acres being between his property of Cockmans and the messuage called Gullage where Edward Alfrey resides. And that Edward Alfrey being of ‘ardetous disposure’ has recently enclosed the common to the great hindrance of the farmers of Cockmans.

Edward Alfrey replies that the owners and occupiers of Cockmans alias Lear have not had rights of common upon the waste ground called Leighoath for many years, but that he is the sole freeholder of this land. He continues that about the 23^rd July 1608, Sackville Turner and others did unlawfully carry away loads of wood and timber that had been growing on the land called Leighoath, apparently supposing the wood to be his own as he is pretending that he has a title to the land. He then states he has submitted his complaint of riot and unlawful behaviour to the Court of Star Chamber and interrogators were preparing to examine the witnesses to discover the circumstances. He asks that the Court of Chancery wait for the decision of the Court of Star Chamber otherwise their actions or decisions may harm the proceedings of the higher court.

Edward Alfrey submits a complaint to the King (Court of Star Chamber) saying that he possessed about 14 cords of wood [each cord is a stack of wood 4 foot x 4 foot x 8 foot] that was laying in a parcel of land in East Grinstead called Wardlye alias Deeplane that he holds freely. That Sackville Turner, John Burstow, Arthur Harman and Thomas Ridlye being accompanied with many other persons yet unknown not respecting the King’s laws ‘being arrayed with warlike weapons as defensive as offensive as with swords and daggers bills axes and long picked staffs did riotously and unlawfully assemble themselves together at East Grinstead and being so assembled and armed and in their habits and attires disguised in such sort that they might not be known did riotously and unlawfully in the night of the said three and twentieth day of August enter into the said parcel of land called Wardly alias Deeplane and riotously and unlawfully carry away with wains and carts the said wood there being containing fourteen cords or thereabouts to the great terror not only of your said subject and his servants but also of all other of your Majesties loving subjects inhabiting near to the place’.

By describing the misdemeanour as a riot and unlawful assembly by an armed group, Edward Alfrey is able to take the case to the higher court.

The answer of Sackville Turner, John Burstow, Arthur Harman and Thomas Ridlie is that this complaint is malicious and that they all believe that Edward Alfrey was not lawfully possessed of the 14 cords of wood, and that they belonged to Sackville Turner. They also dispute that Edward Alfrey has title to the land, but do not know who the owner is. They say the land is not called Wardley but is called Deep Lane as it has always taken a highway and common passage for the lay people of the land. They do confess that very early in the morning (but after dawn) they did fetch and carry away the stacks of wood ‘as they hope it was lawful for them to do’ as they hope they will be able to prove the wood was once growing on the common called Leyhoath Common which Sackville Turner pretended a title and cut down and corded the wood and was thus the lawful owner of it. Then Edward Alfrey took the wood from the common and put it on the land he calls Wardelye alias Deeplane. They say they peaceably took the wood, and utterly deny they did this at night, but it was ‘very early in the morning before Edward Alfrey or his people were stirring’ as they would not have been able to take it in the daytime without the resistance of Edward Alfrey who the defendants ‘well know to be given to fighting and quarrelling’. They deny being armed with the unlawful weapons listed in Edward Alfrey’s complaint, and that they had agreed between them beforehand that if resistance was met they would disperse without striking a single blow. They also deny being disguised.

Sackville Turner relinquished his property of Cockmans alias Lear to Edward Alfrey just after this court case as it is listed as being held by Edward Alfrey Junior when he died in 1609[77]. The Inquisition Post Mortem for Edward Alfrey Junior is heavily modified with a large section of it relating to the grant of Tilkhurst to trustees in 1605 crossed through. His lands are identified as the messuage called le Gullage in East Grinstead parts of which are known by the separate names of Courtfield, Wardleigh and French lands; also land called Heathlands and a messuage and land called Cockmans in East Grinstead; also a messuage and land called Telkhurst. Within the deleted section is a lists of fields, they are ‘le brickfield, le weufield mead, le kitchin field, le kitchin field mead, le c[illegible section], le new barn hawe, le wardlye, lez frenchlands and lez rorse frenchlands parcel of the aforesaid tenement’. Unfortunately it is impossible to determine the context within which they are being listed and the only known brick field and kitchen field abut onto Gullege house, and we would expect ‘le wardlye’ to be located near the moated site. The heir of Edward Alfrey junior was his son Edward Alfrey aged 12.

The properties of le Gullage and the lands belonging to it known as Courtfield, Wardleigh and Frenchlands; and certain land called Heathelands, a messuage and land called Cockmans and a messuage and land called Telkehurst were still held by Edward Alfrey when he died in 1642[78].

Archaeology & Landscape

The moated site at Warley is constructed upon the Roman Road from London to Brighton. The road alignment was surveyed by Ivan Margary[79] and he identified that the agger (embankment) was visible just south of Greenfield Shaw where the road changed alignment before heading down the hill to the moated site. He was unable to find any metalling in the fields south of the moated site and the agger becomes visible again just north of Felbridge Water. The Roman Road was on the line of the deep hollow that runs up the middle of plots 19 and 22 on the 1841 sale plan. Aerial photographs have indicated a rectilinear feature that straddles the Roman Road just south of the moated site, and it has been suggested by David Stavely, an archaeological geophysicist, that its size and position could be consistent with a mansio, which was an official stopping off point along the Roman Road. The location here would put it half way between the mansio sites that have been identified north and south from Felbridge, and they were often located close to a crossing of a watercourse.

The moated site was scheduled as a monument in 1971, stating that some medieval/post medieval tile was found on the smaller of the two islands. No buildings survive above ground level, although fox holes on the larger island have pieces of dressed building stone and several types of glazed floor tiles which represent a high status property. A plain green glazed floor tile from the site was dated by Sussex Archaeological Society as 11^th century, whilst the decorated glazed floor tiles were 14^th century, one of which is a heraldic design featuring six fleur-de-lis on the shield. The fleur-de-lis was the emblem of the Alfrey family but their arms were a single fleur-de-lis on a chevron in the 1662 visitation[80], however, William Berry of the College of Arms states that the Alfrey arms are a chevron with ‘fleur-de-lis of the field’ which implies a background containing multiple fleur-de-lis[81], alternatively the tile may not be a specific coat of arms as the fleur-de-lis was also a symbol of France and used decoratively. There were pottery fragments identified from the site as early to mid 16^th century, thus the moated site demonstrates domestic occupation from 11^th century through to the 16^th century.

LiDar interpretation of the moated site clearly shows the two moated islands and it is the larger west one that has the glazed floor tiles and pottery scatter, although the listing of the site records medieval/post medieval tile found on the smaller island. The LiDar also shows what appears to be the remains of a mill pond stretching east from the moat back to the bridge where the track from Gullege crosses Felbridge Water. The evidence is that there are steep banks a significant distance from the current line of Felbridge Water and the stream meanders considerably between them. This is also visible on the ground and there is a separate much higher bank between the stream and the north side of the moated islands which might have been to protect them from flooding. The water courses around the moated site may have been altered in the 1930’s by Sir Thomas Segrave who was known to have cleared and flooded enough of the moat to be able to row a boat around the islands, however the steep banks observed further east are more likely to have been created by longer term lapping of water in a mill pond. A similar feature of steep banks and wildly meandering stream is found a little further downstream at the approach to FurnaceLake, here the map evidence shows that this area formed part of the lake[82], before the water level was reduced.

The land immediately to the south and east of the moated site is crossed with several earth works and no archaeological investigation has taken place on this land. However, Hillway Nursery has occupied the site to the east since the late 1950’s and they have not found fragments of pottery within their ploughed soils indicating that there was no significant domestic occupation at that location.

The historic parish boundary between Worth and East Grinstead forms the west boundary of 1841 sale plan plots 20, 22 and 24 which has a deep hollow way along the East Grinstead side of the boundary. The draft Ordnance Survey map 1805-8[83] shows buildings east of the hollow way in plot 20, these are also shown on the tithe map, the apportionment calling it a cottage and barn. The 1841 Gullege sale plan and schedule call it Bottle House and the field to the east of the moat is called Bottle Mead[84]. The Worth Tithe apportionment has plot e212 immediately west of Bottle House called Botleys Field. Botl is Anglo-Saxon for a building or dwelling place[85].

The same decorated glazed 14^th century floor tiles found at the moated site have also been found in an area at the west side of Heathy Field, this area is also associated with pottery concentrations dating from the 13^th century to the 15^th century, although later medieval pottery then becomes more concentrated about 60m further south, east of what was known as Lye Wood Yard in the mid 19^th century[86]. Modern pottery is concentrated around Lye Wood Yard, which was later known as Gullege Cottage and is shown on maps until 1954. The pottery from Heathy Field shows continuous use of the site from the 12^th century through to the 20^th century.

There are some domestic pottery finds from the north end of Long Field, adjacent to the track from Gullege to Crawley Down Road, although the number of finds are much less than those from Heathy Field. The finds represent some use of that area from the 14^th century, but with potential occupation period in the 16^th century.

The south end of Long Field, immediately north of Gullege, does not have any pottery finds until the 15^th century. This is similar to Brick Field on the south side of Gullege which has a quantity of 15^th century pot shards in the 60m strip south of the house indicating a 15^th century start to occupation for the site of the current dwelling called Gullege. However two 13^th and 14^th century pot shards were found 100m south of the house.

The evidence appears to show a series of principle dwellings starting at the moated site and then moving south east up the hill by the 13^th century and then to the current site of Gullege house by the 15^th century. It is interesting that the 1874 Ordnance Survey map shows a path from Lye Wood Yard down to the house south of the moated site suggesting a link between these properties such that there was regular traffic between them. The reuse of the medieval floor tiles from the moated site further up the hill, whilst the moated site continued to have domestic occupation would also imply common ownership rather than raiding an abandoned building for materials.

LiDar indicates a potential extension of the track south east of Lye Wood Yard as a linear depression curving eastwards until it reaches the ponds just south of Gullege. This could therefore indicate the original route of the ridgeway to the west of Gullege.

No field walks have been conducted south of the old railway line and there are no buildings shown between Gullege and Tilkhurst on any maps, including the detailed draft Ordnance Survey of 1805-8[87] or the tithe map. However mapping the field names containing ‘barn’ identifies two sites that are not associated with any known buildings or archaeological evidence, these are plots 39 and 63 on the 1841 Gullege Sale plan. Plot 39 is south of Gullege and is now bisected by the old railway whilst plot 63 is in the very south west corner of Gullege lands. Plot 39 Barn Marl Pit is also called Burnt Marl Pit so Barn may be a miss-transcription of Burnt or vice versa. Some barns stand in isolation, for example Doves Barn, Copthorne Road, but this was a facility that documents show was shared between the three farms enclosed out of Hedgecourt Common within the manor of Blecthingley, thus it is peculiar. All of the other ‘barn’ fields within Tilkhurst and Gullege lands abut known dwelling sites and thus plot 63 (and potentially 39) is more likely to be close to the site of a farm that has been abandoned.

Locations for the named lands

The above text has identified a number of place names either as dwellings or names for parcels of land within or abutting Wardley, this section is an attempt to identify their approximate locations.

In 1642 Edward Alfrey held Gullege and parts of its lands were known by the separate names of Courtfield, Wardleigh and Frenchlands. He also held the messuage and lands called Cockmans, lands called Heathlands and the messuage called Tilkhurst[88]. The court case above involving Sackville Turner, discussed Leighoth as being between his lands of Cockmans alias Lear and the tenement of Gullege.

The lands called Crabs Mead and The Clippards are easy to locate on the map below as they have not changed their name and are shown in the title deeds to Hophurst Farm and Gullage respectively.

Heathlands was held by the manor of Sheffield Grinstead and was listed as the property of Sir Percy Bysshe Shelley (deceased) at the court of 1845[89]. Whilst its absolute location cannot be determined it has to be within one of Sir Timothy Shelley’s properties in the East Grinstead tithe of 1842 which include Ridge Hill Farm, Tickeridge and Fen Place Mill. It is therefore most probably a parcel of land that is separate from the lands of Gullege and Tilkhurst.

The approximate location of Frenchlands can be determined from the fieldnames containing the ‘french’ element in the 1841 schedule, they are Outer French Long Field, Long French Field, Little French Long Wood and Great French Wood. In the tithe apportionment these are recorded as ‘fence’ rather than ‘french’. They are shown on the map below lying south of Gullege. This area of Gullege lands is noticeably more wooded on the sale plan, with either continuous woodland or significant retention of wooded shaws along the field boundaries. This could indicate that the fields in this locality were later clearances of the woodland compared to the fields both south and north.

I have attributed the location of Courtfield to the Smythford location at the north west corner of Gullege lands. It was more accurately described as ‘a parcel of land within Courtfield’, and was rented by the manor of Hedgecourt which held the lands abutting the west boundary of Gullege, north of Hophurst Farm. There is a banked enclosure around the east side of Botleys Mead which turns west before it reaches Felbridge Water, this leaves an area of land between Botleys Mead and Felbridge Water that has no landscape boundary on the east side to the Gullege Lands. This is therefore a potential location for the parcel of land in Courtfield.

Whilst the location of the messuage called Tilkhurst is certainly that of the medieval farmhouse that was demolished in the 20^th century and replaced by the modern farm buildings, it is not as easy to identify its land holding. The difficulty is that both Gullege and Tilkhurst were in common ownership under the Alfrey family and therefore lands could easily be swapped between them. The tithe boundary for Tilkhurst does not align with Richard Alfreys account of the lands as being 84 acres of lands known as Homelands, Crabbegrove, Crabbegrove Meads and Butlers. Even removing the Riddens and the field to the south of the Wardley tithing boundary, the land area is still 120 acres and it does not contain (or get near to) Crab Mead which are part of Hophurst Farm by the 1800’s.

Leighoth which Sackville Turner and Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst manor described as being common or waste land is also mentioned in a 1535 grant to John Gage where the bounds of Warnetts in Worth is given as on the south ‘the road from Crawley Down to Leyghhothes Grene’ and on the east ‘the road from Leygh Hothes Grene to Sheres stone’[90]. The location of Warnetts is shown on the map but the bounds strongly imply that the lane from Hophurst Farm to the east goes to Leighoth before anywhere else, if Leighoth was beyond Gullege, then it would probably be described as the road to Gullege. It must also lie south of Warnetts, otherwise it would be listed as its eastern boundary rather than the road from it to the sherestone.

There are a couple of field names in this locality that could be associated with Leighoth Green, they are Green Field, Common Field and Common Field Shaw (later known as Green Field Shaw) which are bisected by the track from Hophurst to Gullege. It is normal for early tracks to cross what were the unenclosed wastes or commons, as is the case of the hollow way at the Riddens. Lye Wood Yard is called Leigh Wood Yard in the tithe, potentially indicating its proximity to the heath of that name. Sackville Turner describes Leighoth as being about 24 acres and whilst it is impossible to identify its extents, I have shown an area of 24 acres on the map to provide the scale of the lands trying to keep as much of the tracks within the potential bounds of Leighoth.

The location of the dwelling for ‘Cockmans alias Lear’ owned by Sackville Turner is most probably north of Lye Wood Yard, where the scatter of medieval floor tiles was found. It was described as a messuage in 1357 when Cockman purchased it and again in 1642 at Edward Alfrey’s death, a messuage is a dwelling of some stature above the status of a cottage; Gullege and Tilkhurst are also described as messuages at this time period. Only a high status dwelling would have decorated floor tiles and as there are never more than 3 messuage within the whole holding thus this must be the third site.

The lands associated with Cockmans are elusive. There is a continuous field boundary, indicative of an early land division, north west of this site but this surrounds the moated site and lands to the south of it and does not encompass the proposed site for Cockmans. The 1357 purchase of the property gives an approximate area of 90 acres, this would equate to all of the land north of the track between Hophurst and Gullege and west of the track from Gullege to Crawley Down Road including the moated site. Cockmans later became Lye Wood Farm, which paid £5/4s land tax in 1850, compared to the tax on Gullege which was £7/6s, so Lye Wood Farm is valued at only a little less than Gullege making it a considerable size, potentially aligning with the 90 acre original property.

This leaves the parcel of Gullege land called Wardleigh which must lie outside of Cockmans as its inclusion in the Gullege land descriptions predates the addition of Cockmans. Whilst it seems logical that this land would be close to the moated manor house site of the same name, it seems more likely that it is located elsewhere, perhaps the lands on the east of Gullege track north of the house or in the south west corner of Gullege lands which are cultivated and, based upon field names, probably had a barn. Although as we are only looking for ‘land called Wardleigh’ there is no requirement for it to have a dwelling.

Schedule of Plots for the 1841 Sale Plan 

No.	Name		A	R	P		No.	Name		A	R	P
1	House yard garden and buildings		3	0	16		41	Eight Acre Mead	Meadow	7	0	33
2	Kitchen Field	Arable	8	2	21		42	Upper East Field	Arable	4	1	36
3	Marle Forest Field	Arable	5	3	1		43	Low East Field	Arable	6	3	19
4	Upper Rail Field	Arable	8	2	30		44	Hop Garden Field	Arable	4	3	24
5	Lower Rail Field	Wood	6	2	32		45	Inner Long Field	Arable	8	1	0
6	Grubbed Coppice	Furze	8	1	20		46	Outer Long Field	Arable	8	1	3
7	The Lagg	Meadow	1	1	20		47	The Jowl	Meadow	3	0	32
8	Late Coopers House    1-20						48	Long Mead	Meadow	5	3	32
9	House Field    2-25	Pasture					49	Road	Road	2	1	11
10	Hither Field    3-2	Arable	3	2	9		51	Brickfield	Pasture	8	0	35
11	The Plot    0-30	Arable					52	Marl Pit Field Shaw	Wood	1	0	27
12	Great Mead    1-1-14	Meadow					53	Marl Pit Field	Pasture	8	2	4
13	Gate Mead    0-38	Arable					54	Alder Shaw	Wood	2	2	12
14	Common Field	Arable	11	0	2		55	Alder Field Shaw	Shaw	0	2	12
15	Common Wood	Wood	7	2	25		56	Alder Field	Arable	12	0	16
16	Moat Plot	Pasture	0	1	8		57	Grub Field	Arable	5	0	35
17	The Moat	Wood	1	0	16		58	Marl Pit Wood	Wood	5	3	7
18	Bottle Mead	Meadow	1	0	5		59	Daisy Field	Arable	4	3	0
19	Barn Mead	Meadow	2	0	16		60	Great Mead	Meadow	5	1	19
20	Bottle House	Meadow	0	2	0		61	Thorough Field Bottom	Meadow	1	1	33
21	Backoth Mead	Meadow	2	1	32		62	Thorough Field	Arable	7	1	8
22	Hop Ground Mead	Meadow	2	3	32		63	Barn Field	Pasture	14	3	33
23	The Four Acres	Arable	4	0	22
24	Hurdle Field	Arable	6	1	32		64	Oak Field Shaw	Wood etc	1	1	14
25	Hill Field	Furze	3	3	24		65	Grub Field Marl Pit	Wood etc	1	1	25
26	Green Field	Furze	3	0	32		66	Oak Field	Pasture	11	0	12
27	Broom Shaw	Wood	2	0	8		67	Great Sheep Field	Arable	8	2	10
28	Broom Field	Arable	5	2	12		68	Outer French Long Field	Rough Pasture	7	2	25
29	Gravel Pit Field	Arable	5	0	20		69	Long French Field	Rough Pasture	7	2	25
30	Lye Wood Mead	Meadow	5	1	0		70	Strawberry Field	Rough Pasture	8	0	10
31	Lye Wood Yard		2	0	16		71	Strawberry Shaw	Wood	0	2	32
32	South Field	Pasture	7	2	30		72	Little French Long Wood	Wood	2	1	24
33	Common Field	Pasture	8	2	20		73	Little Sheep Field	Arable	5	1	27
34	Common Field Shaw	Wood	0	2	8		74	Gravel Court Field	Arable	4	0	32
35	Denshire Field	Arable	6	0	11		75	Lower Pit Field	Pasture	6	1	12
36	Southfield Mead	Pasture	2	1	30		76	Lower Shaw	Wood	1	0	14
37	Grove Length Field	Pasture	3	0	3		77	Great French Wood	Wood	10	0	8
38	Grove Length Shaw	Wood	3	0	19		78	Upper Pit Field	Arable	6	0	22
39	Barn Marl Pit	Wood	4	2	35		79	Barn Marl Pit Field	Arable	2	3	14
40	South Field Shaw	Wood	0	2	16			Total		364	3	25

People living in the tithing of Wardley

There are a few entries identifying people living in the tithing of Wardley, the majority are hundred court records, but these normally only state the headborough and who he is presenting as his successor. Properties are shown where known. Entries without references are from the series of Hundred Courts within the Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst records[91]. The persons marked * are known to have lived north of Felbridge Water as they are also listed in the manorial courts and rentals for the manor of Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst.

1500   Thomas Hill & John Harman[92]

1560   Lay Subsidy for Wardlye: Bartholemew Harman for land (40s) 2s 8d, Henry Alferye for land (£6) 8s, Richard Alferye for land (20s) 16d[93]

1563   George Harman, Batholymewe Harman, Richard Alferey[94]

1576    Lay Subsidy for Wardley: Edward Alfrye in goods (£3) 5s, Edward Ellys in goods (£4) 6s 8d, W^m? Bray in goods (£3) 5s[95]

1642   Hearth Tax for Wardley Borough (with the number of hearths)
Richard Head 8 (Gullege), Thomas Browne 4, Edward Soan 4 (Tilkhurst)
These persons are legally discharged by certificate: Richard Furne 1, Richard Girrill 1, George Tester 1, Thomas Cooper* 1, Widow Locke 1, William Parknell 1

1672   Richard Tester, William Pucknell

1672   Richard Wood, Edward Soane (Tilkhurst), Thomas Browne, Richard Tester, Thomas Cooper*, William Pucknell

1675   William Pucknell, Thomas Cooper*, Edward Soane (Tilkhurst), Richard Tester, Richard Head (Gullege), William Bromfield

1675   Richard Soane

1676   William Bish, Thomas Cooper*, Thomas Browne

1677   William Bishop[sic], Thomas Brown, Richard Tester

1677   Thomas Browne, William Bish, Edward Stone[sic] (Tilkhurst), Richard Tester, Thomas Cooper*, William Pucknell, Thomas Gower

1679   Thomas Browne, Edward Soane (Tilkhurst), Thomas Cooper*, Thomas Gower, William Bish, George Cornhill, Robert Marchant, Christopher Parkes, Julien Catt

1680   Thomas Gower, Edward Suoune, Thomas Gower, Thomas Cooper*, William Bish, George Cornhill, William Pucknell

1682   Barnett Marten*, Thomas Gower, Edward Soane (Tilkhurst), William Bish, Thomas Cooper*, William Pucknell

1683   Thomas Cooper*, Barnett Marten*, Thomas Gower, Edward Soane (Tilkhurst), William Bish, William Head, William Picknell

1684   William Head, Thomas Gower, Edward Soane, William Bish

1685-6   William Head

1687   William Head, John Cooper*

1688-9   William Head

1690   William Head, Barnard Martyn*, William Pucknall

1692   Bernard Martyn*

1693   William Pucknell, John Chele, William Payne

1694   John Chele, Barnard Martin*, William Payne

1695   Barnet Martin*, William Payne, Robert Marchant*

1696   Edward Soane (Tilkhurst), William Saunders (Gullege), Robert Marchant*, Richard Payne, John Cheale

1697   Edward Soane (Tilkhurst), William Saunders (Gullege)

1698   William Saunders (Gullege), Barnard Marten*, Robert Marchant*

1699   Bernard Martyn*, William Pucknall, Benjamin Stenning

1700   William Pucknall, Benjamin Stenning, William Saunders (Gullege)

1701   Benjamin Stenning, William Saunders (Gullege)

1701   Thomas Cooper*, William Pucknill

1734   Jowel [Joel] Bowrah[96]

From the lay subsidies of 1563, 1576 and the hearth tax of 1642 we can see that there are clearly three larger properties within the tithing. Gullege and Tilkhurst are named as two, thus the third is likely to be Cockmans alias Lear which we know was occupied in 1608 from the court case between Sackville Turner and Edward Alfrey. It is likely that Bartholemew Harman is the occupier in 1560 based upon the value of his lands, he also appears as a tenant of Hedgecourt Manor 1562-1570[97], so Cockmans could be the 50 acres of land in East Grinstead that Henry Gage holds in 1490 paying rent to Henry Tracy, which is the same land and tenement that Nicholas Culpepper said was ‘the manor of Warelye’ in his court statement c1500.

The hearth tax also shows six single hearth properties that were exempted from the tax due to poverty of the occupiers. We know from the manorial rents for Horsted Keynes-Broadhurst that there is only one enclosure and dwelling upon Felbridge Heath by 1642, the second one being enclosed by Robert Marchant in 1694[98]. Therefore five of these small dwellings are within the lands of Gullege & Tilkhurst. The Byshecourt rental of 1686 shows there is no dwelling at Crabsmead[99] thus narrowing down the possible locations of dwellings.

Benjamin Stenning listed 1699-1701 held land called Smithfields in Worth which includes the field known as Botleys Mead in the 1841 Worth Tithe, so he potentially occupied the cottage called Bottle House in the 1841 Gullege sale schedule. However, Widow Stenning is listed as the occupier of Lye Wood Farm in the 1750 East Grinstead land tax, and Benjamin was part of the Stenning family timber business, so it is possible that Lye Wood Farm extended from the yard at the top of the hill down to the moated site.

The Cooper and Martin families and their properties north of Felbridge Water have been researched before, see Oak Farm[100] and Ascotts[101] for more details. None of the other names can be traced to assist in locating their dwellings. The platforms in the field immediately south of the moated site are the most likely place for a group of cottages, we know that there are two wells in this field, neither of which are close to Bottle House implying at least two other houses, although they may not all be inhabited at the same time. Apart from Bottle House and Lye Wood Yard, any other dwellings have gone and do not show on the 1805-8 Ordnance Survey map[102] or the 1841 East Grinstead Tithe Map[103].

Thus we get an impression of a large area of land, excluding Felbridge Heath, that went from 3 houses and 5 cottages, down to 2 houses and 2 cottages over the 150 year period up to 1800. The loss of cottages was easily made up by the 7 enclosures and dwellings built upon Felbridge Heath by 1800 and this may have fuelled the abandonment of more isolated cottages.

Conclusions

As there are still large gaps in the documentation for this area of land, it has not been possible to determine much about the land division within the tithing. Of the three farmsteads implied in the Domesday entry, one has to be located close to the moated site as that has high status floor tiles contemporary to the 11^th century. A cleared area of about 100 acres would leave very little space for a second farmstead north of the ridgeway. The site of Tilkhurst Farm could be the second farmstead centrally located within what is today still arable land. The lack of early habitation material makes the current site of Gullege unlikely to be the site of the third homestead, and therefore I think it is more likely to be much further south west beyond the belt of wooded land south of Gullege, towards the lands of ‘Hewawdeley als Hawghlighe als Sandhill’[104].This arable land including Crabs Mead along with the lands held by Tilkhurst in the 1842 tithe totals an area of just over 200 acres and would therefore be large enough to have two farmsteads.

Warley manor appears to have become a freehold of La Bysshe manor by the second quarter of the 14^th century, this manor becoming styled Bysshecourt Manor. This freehold status with owners paying quit rents to Bysshecourt generates much fewer records than the manors held from the King that owe him knight’s fees. Despite this it is possible to trace some of the history of the landholding through the medieval period. Tilkhurst appears to become the dominant property name in the 14^th and 15^th centuries, before Gullege became the principle dwelling. However, there are potentially some 13^th century forms of the Gullege name so the name may have been in use before the status of the property rose.

The disputes between land holders give a more colourful image of the local characters and their interactions, whilst the later lists of residents provide clues to a more populated landscape than existed more recently.

It is hoped that publishing these findings will enable researchers to identify other documents that help to fill some of the many gaps in our understanding of the history of this landholding.

JIC 05/17