A HISTORY OF SURREY 



action was as completely thrown overboard by this party as ever it had 

 been on the king's side. A few members tried to keep out of the 

 struggle altogether. Generally esprit de corps made the members rather 

 more Parliamentary on the whole than their constituents, or perhaps it 

 would be safer to say than the inhabitants of the counties with or with- 

 out votes. 



In Surrey Sir Richard Onslow and Sir Ambrose Browne, knights 

 of the shire, were Parliamentarians to begin with. In Southwark 

 Edward Bagshawe and John White were elected in 1 640. The former 

 was disabled for adhering to the king and Mr. White died. Mr. George 

 Thompson and, Mr. George Snelling were respectively elected in their 

 room. Sir Robert Holbourne, member for Southwark in the Short 

 Parliament of 1640, was a Royalist. In Guildford Sir Richard Park- 

 hurst and Mr. George Abbot, nephew to the archbishop, were both 

 Parliamentarians. The latter died and was succeeded by Nicholas 

 Stoughton. In Reigate Lord Monson was a keen Parliamentarian; Sir 

 Thomas Bludworth, or Bludder, the other member, was disabled for 

 adhering to the king and George Evelyn elected in his room. In 

 Blechingley Sir John Evelyn and Edward Bysshe, in Gatton Sir Samuel 

 Owfield and Thomas Sandys, in Haslemere John Goodwyn and Sir 

 Poynings More were Parliamentarian. Sir Samuel Owfield died in the 

 course of the war and was succeeded by William Owfield. Sir Poynings 

 More died in 1649, having forsaken the party, as indeed did others, 

 before the execution of the king. The proportion of 1 2 members to 2 

 for the Parliament and king respectively at the beginning of the war 

 may be compared with the proportion in the adjacent counties. Middle- 

 sex and Essex were all Parliamentary, Kent was 15 to 3, Sussex was 17 

 to 11, Hampshire 14 to 6, Berkshire 8 to i, Buckinghamshire 10 to 4. 

 Surrey was by this test rather more Parliamentary than Kent and Buck- 

 inghamshire, less so than Berkshire, decidedly less so than Middlesex 

 and Essex. But it had not so much Royalist feeling as Hampshire and 

 decidedly less than Sussex. Rather more than one quarter of the bene- 

 ficed clergy were deprived as ' malignants,' though many other accusa- 

 tions, false and true, were added to that of their malignancy. At all 

 events the county was from the first almost completely under the control 

 of the Parliament. It was a necessary acquisition. It contained the 

 most important gunpowder mills in the country, at Chilworth, 1 and can- 

 non foundries. It lay between London and the more important cannon 

 foundries of Sussex those at Worth for instance. The furnaces near 

 the southern part of the Weald of Sussex sent their produce to London 

 by sea, not by road through Surrey. One furnace, Mr. Quennell's at 

 Imbhams, near Chiddingfold, which had been Lord Montague's, supplied 

 the king with guns till it was stopped by force, and other ironmasters 

 would have done so if they could, being Royalists. This was the Mr. 



1 Sir Richard Onslow is said to have been accused after the Restoration of having ruined the 

 king's powder mills at Chilworth (see art. in Diet, of Nat. Biography) ; but the mills continued making 

 powder for the Parliament. 



406 



