Surrey was dominated throughout this period by the Onslow interest, which had been established relatively recently. Sir Richard Onslow* of Cranleigh and West Clandon, the first member of the family to sit for the county, commenced his parliamentary career in 1628. He had then had to take second place to Sir Ambrose Browne*, who was from an old Surrey family and about ten years his senior. But by 1640 Sir Richard had consolidated his estates and held multiple local offices; a man of ‘large fortune’, he was well on the way to justifying his great-grandson’s contention that he enjoyed ‘very close friendship with most of the considerable men’ of his locality and ‘was much esteemed in his own country, where he bore the principal sway in all business and interests’. HMC 14th Rep. IX, 476. Browne, who shared a distinguished record of public service, had to be content with second place in both the spring and autumn elections.
The decay of the cloth trade, controversies over disafforestation and the Wey navigation project, the (relatively fair) burden of Ship Money, and the puritan sympathies of many leading gentry, including Onslow and Browne, contributed to a significant disenchantment with royal policies among Surrey’s elite and to the agenda followed by its representatives. VCH i. 401-4; SP16/379, f. 234; CSP Dom. 1640, pp. 207, 287. As political tension intensified in the first 18 months of the Long Parliament, the Surrey Members and their colleagues from other parts of the county carried powerful local voices with them as they petitioned against the secular power of bishops, reported suspicious traffic and kept a careful eye on the gunpowder magazines. D’Ewes (C), 306, 310; PJ i. 43, 349. In the aftermath of the king’s abortive attempt to arrest the Five Members, they played an important role in searching Vauxhall for concealed arms. PJ i. 28; D’Ewes (C), 397.
In spring 1642 differences surfaced in Parliament between Onslow’s western division and other parts of the county regarding assessment rates (28 Apr. 1642). PJ ii. 239. Nonetheless, an alliance of Onslow, Browne from the middle division, Sir John Evelyn of Surrey* from the east and other Surrey MPs, was able to marshal sufficient support to uphold local obedience to Parliament as the country slid into war. Sir Richard implemented the parliamentary warrant to arrest Sir Thomas Mallet when the judge attempted to obstruct the county committee at Kingston assizes and promoted the adjournment of those assizes closer to Browne’s sphere of influence at Dorking (4, 12 Aug. 1642). CJ ii. 704b, 716b; PJ iii. 278n. Following the death of lord lieutenant Charles Howard, 2nd earl of Nottingham, and the departure for the continent of his colleague Thomas Howard, 1st earl of Arundel, Onslow spearheaded measures for the appointment of Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland, to succeed them (5 Oct.), and of new deputy lieutenants in the east of the county (2 Nov.). CJ ii. 795a, 831a. The steady but moderate parliamentarianism of Onslow and Browne may be credited both with containing continuing royalist loyalties at Kingston – to the extent that the county committee could later hold its meetings at the Crane Inn there – and with persuading potentially royalist or undecided gentry elsewhere in the county not to support the king’s forces during their incursions that autumn and subsequently. VCH Surr. i. 404; M. Vaughan-Lewis, Scandal on the Corporation (1982); SP16/501, ff. 9, 206. The strategic importance of this stance is illustrated, for instance, in the oversight exercised by Onslow and others over the all-important gunpowder mills. CJ iii. 671b.
Over the war years the rule of the moderates did not go unchallenged. An ordinance of February 1643 for raising troops to defend Surrey put Onslow’s close ally and fellow deputy lieutenant Nicholas Stoughton* in command. CJ ii. 964b. But by this time the ramifications of the temporary abandonment of the stronghold of Farnham Castle in the autumn had opened up fissures between moderates and militants among the parliamentarian county elite. George Wither, the erstwhile governor, who nursed a grievance against Onslow and Stoughton, put his propagandist skills at the disposal of his protector, Sir John Maynard* and the militants. A power struggle ensued in which Maynard and his group attempted repeatedly to wrest control from the deputy lieutenants and vest it in a remodelled and more radical county committee; the advantage shifted frequently over several years and the conflict was regularly apparent at Westminster until the Commons finally dismissed Wither’s complaints in May 1646. Harl. 165, ff. 178v, 254; Harl. 166, ff. 76, 124v, 135v; CJ iv. 365a, 366a, 399b, 403b, 457b, 505b, 538a, 550a, 550b, 624b, 637b, 638b, 639b, 640a, 669b; Add. 31116, pp. 528, 559; CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 155, 165, 226, 538; 1644-5, p. 341; G. Wither, Se Defendendo (1644) (E.37.13), Justiarius justificatus (1646) (E.506.30); HMC Var. iv. 174; Gurney, ‘George Wither and Surrey politics’, 76-87.
Through the radical unrest of 1647 and the Presbyterian coup, Onslow and Browne kept a low profile, but in 1648 Sir Richard put his authority behind the rejection of pro-royalist petitioning and, to the disappointment of insurgents, the pacification of the rebellious county. SP16/516, f. 66; SP21/24, f. 203; Evelyn Diary ed. Bray, 542-3; Mercurius Elencticus no. 26 (17-24 May 1648), 101 (E.443.45); A.R. Mitchell, ‘Surr. in 1648’, Surr. Arch. Colls. lxvii. 69; LJ x. 285-8; CJ v. 566a-567a, 691b, 695a. Nurturing their own aspirations for peace with the king through the summer and early autumn, Onslow and Browne were at Westminster, but both fell victim to the purge on 6 December, the former being briefly imprisoned while the latter was permanently excluded. CJ v. 697b; vi. 30b, 55a, 58a, 83b, 88a; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 2. 1309, 1355; A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62). While Browne, whose son had fought for the king, faced the threat of sequestration, Onslow continued as a local commissioner and in 1651 served – somewhat equivocally – in forces repelling the Scottish invasion. CCAM 1236-7; CCC 304, 393-4, 398; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1651, p. 285; Whitelocke, Mems. (1732), 508; HMC 14th Rep. IX, 477-8; HMC Portland, i. 582; TSP i. 750.
In Surrey as elsewhere, the Nominated Parliament broke the mould. Samuel Hyland of Southwark, the county’s most populous borough, was recommended for inclusion by the churches of Kent, although the nature of his relationship with these congregations, and of their external influence, is obscure. Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 128. A distiller, lay pastor and one time Leveller, he is generally agreed to be the author of the only extant account of the Parliament’s proceedings written by an MP. An Exact Relation (1654, E.729.6); Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, ii. 289; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 120. The other nominee was Lawrence Marsh, son of a London mercer, who had arrived in the county to take up residence in Dorking only in 1648. His circle was largely Presbyterian, but he was close to Henry Colbron, a scrivener who held offices connected with confiscated lands. Surr. Arch. Colls. lv. 55; PROB11/218/164 (William Ihams); CJ vi. 249a; A. and O.
Under the Instrument of Government the overall representation of Surrey was reduced from 14 to 10 Members, only four of whom sat for boroughs. Of the six county Members elected in 1654, only one, the parliamentarian general John Lambert*, who had acquired the manor of Wimbledon and who was himself a major architect of the protectorate, could be considered reliably loyal to it. C6/117/145. Returned also for his native West Riding, it seems that he sat for both constituencies. The result of the election was otherwise overwhelmingly conservative. Onslow’s supporters were out in force, his close friends George Duncumb* of Shalford and John Westbrooke* of Witley being among the first of the 40 or so freeholders to sign the indenture. C219/44; Wharton, A Second Narrative, 18. Sir Richard, who evidently found the new regime less unpalatable than its predecessor, came top of the poll. In third place was his eldest son Arthur Onslow*, who had represented Bramber in the Long Parliament, and in fourth another experienced man and Onslow ally, Francis Drake* of Walton on Thames, who had sat for Amersham and been active against the Diggers. Robert Holman* of Bletchingley had been an active deputy lieutenant and justice of the peace in the Onslow camp. A. and O.; SP28/245; SP28/254; C181/4/528; C231/6, ff. 41, 212, 429. Colonel Robert Wood* of Kingston-upon-Thames, the final Member, was of the same ilk, albeit with a less secure reputation. Kingston had been transformed into a radical stronghold and on 20 August (nearly six weeks after the poll) the bailiffs, the recently-appointed minister Richard Mayo and ‘divers others’ of the town submitted an objection to Wood’s election, alleging that he was not qualified to serve. He had been ‘illegally chosen and by many persons interested in the late king’s cause’. A man of ‘bad life and conversation’, he had obstructed the ‘cause of the commonwealth’, insulted Oliver Cromwell* and colluded with royalist insurgents. SP18/74, f. 198. However, John Westbrooke and 11 godly ministers from across the county testified on his behalf and his election was allowed to stand. SP18/74, ff. 202, 204. He had taken his seat by 10 October. CJ vii. 375b.
During the second protectorate Parliament Sir Richard Onslow proved something of a thorn in the flesh of the government and it continued to regard him with suspicion. It was later alleged that the then sheriff, Sir Thomas Pride*, was instructed to block his re-election in 1656, but such was Onslow’s pre-eminence in Surrey that this was either inadvisable or impossible. HMC 14th Rep. IX, 478. Sir Richard, his son Arthur and Francis Drake were again returned, together with their friend George Duncumb. The mix was leavened by two candidates closer to the government. Captain John Blackwell* of Mortlake was joint treasurer-at-war and through his wife a kinsman to Cromwell. Bodl. Rawl. A27, ff. 295-6; TSP iv. 765-6. Major Lewis Audley* of West Purley had played a key role in putting down the insurrection of 1648 and had recently become clerk of the ordnance. SP21/9, f. 211v; L. Awdeley, A True Relation (1648, E.451.30); CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 330. However, even Audley, who had not lost his early radicalism, was no mere place-man, having an independent cast of mind and a firm commitment to reform.
In the second session Sir Richard Onslow was called to the Other House. This rendered him ineligible for election to the third protectorate Parliament in 1659, when there was a reversion to only two county seats. These were duly occupied by Arthur Onslow, who took the senior place, and Drake. The Onslow dominance faltered at elections for the Convention, when both father and son failed to gain sufficient votes, but reasserted itself thereafter. HP Commons 1660-1690.
