INDUSTRIES 



Of Josias Dewy as a powder maker of Chil- 

 worth mention has been made above. His 

 powder was reported to be generally good, as 

 was also that of John Samyne, to whom it 

 was noted that the State owed large sums, for 

 the want of which he had suffered much. He 

 was, after the Chilworth makers, the largest 

 contractor for powder to the State, and first 

 appears in this connection in the year 1651. 

 His name is spelt variously Samyne, Samine 

 or Semaine, most commonly the first. In 

 January 1654-5 he states in a petition to the 

 Admiralty Commissioners that he had at a 

 time when the State had greatly needed pow- 

 der spent ;(^2,ooo in the erection of new 

 mills, and that he had also undertaken to make 

 saltpetre in the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, 

 and Cambridge.^ From a petition of the 

 inhabitants of East Moulsey in 1666 it appears 

 that his mills had been erected in that parish.^ 

 The usurped powers, it was represented, had 

 permitted him to erect two powder mills 

 there, with the result that many of the iri- 

 habitants had seen cause to let or sell their 

 houses. In addition to these he had then 

 lately erected two others, one of which it was 

 pointed out was opposite the king's own house 

 at Hampton Court. It was prayed that an 

 order should be made for the removal of all 

 these mills to a distance, the petitioners no 

 doubt being encouraged by the new condition 

 of aSairs in their attack upon one who had 

 been of important service to the late govern- 

 ment. The matter was referred to the Ord- 

 nance Commissioners, but with what final re- 

 sult does not appear. 



The record of the third of the makers who 

 can be associated with Surrey in the above 

 report was very different to that of Dewry and 

 Samyne. It was said of William Molins and 

 his partners that they ' are in the highest rank 

 of offenders and upon rational grounds may 

 be conceived did act from a covetous dis- 



position and willingly exposed the State to 

 hazard by making the powder of bad materials.' 

 Molins' principal partner seems to have been 

 a certain Abel Richardson, and the two at- 

 tempted to shield themselves behind their 

 manager and the third partner, John Jarvis 

 or Jervase of Carshalton Mills, and his chief 

 workman John Pepper. Previously to this 

 report, on 22 January of the same year, Lewis 

 Fossan, the clerk of these powder works, had 

 been examined as to the manner in which 

 they were conducted. He stated that a ton 

 of saltpetre purchased from the East India 

 Company would make thirty barrels of powder, 

 a quantity which Molins had always had 

 made.' Jarvis, who was security for Pepper, 

 would have left the work to him without any 

 restriction as to the quantity of powder to be 

 made from each ton of saltpetre. Pepper used 

 to find fault with the English saltpetre because 

 it was only singly refined, but this the partners 

 had alleged was in accordance with their con- 

 tract. The partners, Fossan says, were be- 

 hind in their contracts. From 27 August to 

 6 December 1653 ^^^Y '"''^'^ received 7 or 8 

 tons of saltpetre and had delivered 360 barrels 

 of powder in return. 



Molins and Richardson in their defence* 

 stated that they had had a commission to make 

 saltpetre and had then contracted to make it 

 into powder at thirty barrels a ton. But they 

 confessed that this was a work in which they 

 had no skill, and had therefore entered into 

 partnership with Jarvis to carry it out, sup- 

 posing the undertaking was fully provided for. 

 Jarvis provided the other ingredients (the sul- 

 phur and charcoal), and the work was managed 

 by him, Lewis Fossan, and Pepper, who 

 were now attempting to acquit themselves by 

 pretending that they were forced into an 

 engagement to which they had willingly con- 

 sented. 



1 S. P. Dom. Interr. xciv. 47. 

 3 Ibid. Ch. II. clvi. 103. 



s Ibid. Interr. cxxiii. 60. 

 * Ibid, cxxvi. 63. 



323 



