A HISTORY OF SURREY 



ward More for a term of ten years at a yearly 

 rental of ;{^95. The bellows, hammers, ham- 

 mer beams, sledges and other implements 

 previously used in the worlcs are specified in 

 this lease, together with the workmen's 

 houses, which had recently been built upon 

 the heath, the ponds and watercourses, and 

 those places adjoining the works which had 

 been used for the storage of coals, sows, cin- 

 ders, and other things necessary for the work- 

 ing of the hammer. The deed of 1 617 is in 

 the nature of a mortgage or of a first step 

 towards the sale of these works by Sir George 

 More to Henry Bell of Rake in Witley, for 

 the sum of ;^200. Bell was to have the option 

 of purchase should Sir George at any time 

 desire to sell the works. The actual sale took 

 place on 29 March 1623, and Henry Bell 

 became the absolute owner of the Witley 

 works.' 



On I April 1634 the works had descended 

 to Anthony Smith of Witley, Bell's great- 

 nephew, and were then leased by him to 

 Francis Wyat for a term of seven years at a 

 rent of ^^o. They were then described as 

 a certain forge or ironwork called Horsebane 

 Hammer, and one furnace and ironworks 

 then newly erected near the said forge, all 

 situate in Witley and Thursley Heaths. 

 Anthony Smith, it is evident, was very much 

 more concerned with the fish in his hammer 

 ponds than in the success of his ironworks, 

 and squabbles over the elaborate arrangements 

 he had made in the lease for the preservation 

 of the fish and re-stocking of the ponds re- 

 sulted in 1 64 1 in the executors of Wyat's 

 widow, whose decease like her husband's had 

 occurred during the term of the lease, being 

 compelled to seek redress at equity. Hence 

 our knowledge of the terms of this 1634 

 lease.* 



On I June 1666 Anthony Smith again 

 leased the ironworks, this time to William 

 Yalden the elder of Blackdown, Sussex, for 

 two years at a rent of ^{^lo. The works are 

 now described as ' the upper forge and upper 

 finery and the lower hammer, chafery and 

 ironworks called Horsebane Hammer alias 

 Coldharbour Hammer on Witley Heath and 

 Thursley Heath or on both or one of them.' 



* This &ct as well as the particulars below re- 

 lating to the lease of 1 666 were kindly supplied 

 to the editor by the gentleman in whose possession 

 the original deeds now exist. The deeds are given 

 in full in Surr. Arch. Coll. xviii. 28, 43 seq. 



* Chanc. Bills and Answers, Chas. I. C. bdle. i. 

 No. 15. Anthony Smith's continued interest in the 

 fish in his ponds may be seen in a codicil to his will 

 which was proved in the Archdeaconry Court ot 

 Surrey, 11 May 1670. 



The decrease in the value of the yearly 

 rent from £<)<i in 1610 to £i,o in 1634 and 

 £\0 in 1666 is remarkable, and may perhaps 

 be an indication of the reduced demand for 

 Wealden iron. 



The question of the fish in the hammer and 

 rurnace ponds is again insisted upon, and the 

 fishing rights are reserved to the lessor who 

 was also to be at liberty to take all the * cin- 

 ders, bosses or mosses ' made in the works 

 during the term of the lease. He could also, 

 on due notice being given, have the flow of 

 water from the hammer pond to a pond called 

 the Forked Pond stopped at any time that he 

 should be minded to fish the latter pond. The 

 lessee was to pay all the parish rates and 

 taxes on these works as well as the recent 

 tax of li. a year on every chimney hearth in 

 them and also a fourth of any new taxes that 

 the Crown or Parliament might impose during 

 the two years of his lease. He further agreed 

 to buy a certain quantity of wood off Anthony 

 Smith at the rate of 5f. a cord, but was to 

 have the right of coaling or converting this 

 wood into charcoal for use in the ironworks 

 in Smith's coppices. William Yalden, the 

 lessee, w as probably a considerable ironmaster 

 in his day, or was descended from one, for in 

 1 640 a William Yalden received a pardon for 

 all the offences he had committed before 17 

 May 1636, in destroying woods for the 

 smelting of iron in the counties of Surrey, 

 Sussex and Hants.' In the eighteenth cen- 

 tury there were Yaldens settled at Thursley 

 and Haslemere, As the Witley ironworks 

 are the last which we have found to be erected 

 in Surrey, so also, as we have already said, 

 they appear to be the last of which we find a 

 statement that they were actually in working 

 order. In 1730 enough iron ore was said 

 to be found in Witley Park to set on work 

 two forges.* The great amount of traffic 

 that was alleged to exist in 1767 to and from 

 the ironworks between Milford and Hindhead 

 has been already mentioned, and although the 

 greatness of this traffic was disputed, it was 

 not denied that a certain quantity of iron was 

 still made at these works. Manning and 

 Bray mention the iron mill as having been at 

 Thursley, and the two hammer ponds, which 

 still remain and are so called, belonged at 

 their time to Mrs. Webb.* Between them 

 passed the Portsmouth road, the question of 

 the placing of a turnpike on which had given 

 rise to the dispute of 1767. 



In addition to the ironworks whose history 



^ S. P. Docquets, 31 May 1640. 



• Magna Britannia (ed. T. Cox, 1730), v. 401. 



= Manning i(nd Bray, Hut. of Surrey, ii. 52. 



=74 



