INDUSTRIES 



DuNSFOLD. — In one place the list has 

 'Thomas Gratwicke one forge in Donsfolde,' 

 and in another place * Richard Marche a forge 

 in Donsfold.* Again we have works in 

 Surrey incorrectly assigned to Sussex. Ap- 

 parently only one forge is to be understood as 

 existing here, for Thomas Gratwicke who 

 appeared and duly entered into his bond on 

 28 February 1573-4, is then described as 

 farmer to Richard Marche, gentleman, for a 

 forge in Donsfold, co. Sussex («f),' whilst 

 Richard Marche who seems to have been a 

 resident of Farnham, although warned to 

 appear, did not do so, perhaps because his 

 bond was not required, when it was found 

 that he was not his own ironmaster.* The 

 Gratwickes were, as mentioned above, a 

 Sussex family, the Thomas Gratwicke in 

 occupation of the forge at Dunsfold being 

 described as a yeoman of Kirdford. In 1583 

 we find that Dunsfold Hammer had been for 

 three years previous to Easter in that year in 

 part occupation of another Sussex man, for 

 Thomas Bowyer, who is also described as of 

 Kirdford, then gave evidence in the course of 

 some proceedings in the Court of Requests 

 that during that time his brother Simon and 

 a certain Edward Carrell had been in joint 

 possession of the same. The terms of the 

 partnership had been that each should bear a 

 half share of the working expenses of the 

 mill, taking, as we are led to suppose, a half 

 share of the profits. But Carrell was sus- 

 pected of not having dealt fairly with his 

 partner, for the deponent, who had been en- 

 trusted by his brother with the duty of sur- 

 veying the iron wrought in the hammer, had 

 found one day that some iron which Carrell's 

 servants alleged they had weighed as a pre- 

 liminary to its removal from the works was 

 of considerably greater weight than reported. 

 His instructions that it should not be removed 

 until his return had been disobeyed. Other 

 charges there were of a similar nature against 

 Carrell, but the chief value of the evidence is 

 that it enables us to form some idea as to 

 what was the ordinary output of a hammer 

 mill at this period. During the three years, 

 it was stated that 234 tons, 3 qrs. and 14 lb, 

 of iron sows had been brought to the forge, 

 and this amount should have been greater by 

 14 tons if Carrell had duly carried out his 

 part of the bargain, and not have taken off 

 these 14 tons to his own forge elsewhere. 

 When all this had been melted together it 

 should have produced 164^ tons of wrought 

 iron, of which, however, Simon Bowyer had 



1 S. P. Dom. Eliz. xcv. 28, 79. 

 2 Ibid, xcv. 61. 



only received 61 tons, or 21^ tons less thrn 

 what he was entitled to have received.^ 



On 14 February 1583-4 Richard Marche, 

 the owner of Dunsfold Hammer ten years 

 before, died, when it was found that he was 

 seised amongst other possessions of the manor 

 of Burningfold in the parish of Dunsfold 

 with its appurtenances, which he held by 

 fealty and for an annual rent of gs. 4^, of 

 Anthony, Viscount Montague,* The appur- 

 tenances no doubt included the ironworks, for 

 his heir William Marche was in all proba- 

 bility the same person of that name whose 

 inheritance, it is stated in a deed of i Decem- 

 ber 1607, had sometime included the manor 

 of Burningfold with all the ironworks, forges 

 and furnaces erected thereon. From this 

 deed it appears that the manor and iron- 

 works were then held by four tenants in 

 common, namely George Duncombe of 

 CliiFord's Inn, London, John Midleton of 

 Horsham, Richard Wyatt of London, and 

 Thomas Burdett of Abinger, But Dun- 

 combe, for the sum of ;^345 and for the 

 delivery of certain iron due to him, released 

 his fourth share of the property to the remain- 

 ing three partners.'' 



The Sussex list ot iron-mills at work in 

 1653 includes Dunsfold,* and these works 

 were certainly carried on in Aubrey's time. 

 Indeed, as we have seen, so late as 1730 they 

 are mentioned with those of Haslemere as 

 being the most considerable in the county. 



This concludes our account of the Surrey 

 ironworks that are mentioned in Christopher 

 Barker's list of 1574. This list does not 

 perhaps exhaust the number of all those which 

 then existed in the county, but must have con- 

 tained all of any importance. The history of 

 one other important iron-mill, which was not 

 erected until some time after the date of this 

 list, remains to be treated, 



Thursley or Witley Heath, — The first 

 mention of these works has been found in a 

 deed of 17 December 1617,^ This however 

 recites a previous deed of 14 May 16 10, in 

 which the works are described as the ' iron 

 forge, iron hammer or iron work then lately 

 erected and built in or upon Thursley Heath 

 or Witley Heath in the parish of Witley or 

 Thursley.' By the deed of 1 610 Sir George 

 More of Loseley, in whose occupation the 

 works had previously been, and his son and 

 heir Sir Robert More leased them to Sir Ed- 



^ Ct. of Requests, Proc. bdle. 28, No. 13. 

 * Chanc. Inq. p.m. (ser. 2) cciv. No. 97. 

 ' Close, 6 Jas. I. pt. ii No. 29. 

 « Lower, Suss. Arch. Coll. xviii. 14-6. 

 ' Close, 15 Jas. I. pt. 24, No. i. 



273 35 



