A HISTORY OF SURREY 



surprising them at night in the town. 1 Holland was taken and Dalbier 

 killed at St. Neots. The former was executed. Buckingham and Peter- 

 borough escaped abroad. So ended the last real fighting which has taken 

 place in Surrey, and the last serious skirmish of the Civil Wars south of 

 the Thames. The Surrey strong places were rendered still more inde- 

 fensible than they were before, and Livesey's Kentish men were quartered 

 in west Surrey, south-west of Guildford in Compton, Chiddingfold, 

 Witley, Thursley and thereabouts, where perhaps Royalist feeling was 

 suspected. They remained for nine months, and behaved so badly that 

 the inhabitants petitioned the general, Sir Thomas Fairfax, to remove 

 them, and they were accordingly sent to Northamptonshire April 16, 

 1 649, in pursuance of an order signed by Cromwell ; while on the 

 same date Fairfax issued an order warning officers to preserve discipline 

 in the county, but adding that some disorders were perpetrated by per- 

 sons pretending to be soldiers who were to be looked after by the 

 justices. 2 The rising gave the opportunity for forfeiting the property of 

 more delinquents in Surrey, and some troops and companies of soldiers 

 were raised to be paid out of the proceeds. 



Rich's regiment, which had helped to suppress the Surrey rising, 

 did its next notable service on December 6 of this year when it was 

 employed with Pride's foot to coerce the House of Commons. Sir 

 Richard Onslow, member for the county, and Sir William Waller, who 

 had been the foremost agent in keeping Surrey for the Parliament, were 

 among the members arrested by the soldiers in this act of violence to 

 prevent the accommodation ardently desired by five-sixths of the country. 



The reform of the Parliamentary representation of the county was 

 proposed, as was that of all others, by the Agreement of the People, the 

 manifesto of the genuine Republican party, presented to the remnant of 

 the Long Parliament shortly before the execution of the king, but not 

 accepted by them. The number of representatives was to be cut down 

 to two for Southwark and five for five electoral divisions of the county. 

 This constitution never actually came into existence. In the Nominated 

 or Barebones Parliament of 1653, Samuel Highland and Lawrence Marsh 

 who sat for Surrey were both reckoned among the extreme or fanatical 

 party of that assembly. 3 When the Instrument of Government actually 

 made a reformed constitution under the Cromwellian monarchy in 

 December, 1653, Surrey had ten members assigned to it, two for South- 

 wark, one for Guildford, one for Reigate and six for the rest of the 

 county. The last were elected by the whole county, not for districts, 

 but after the collective fashion which the French call scrutin de listed 



1 Report in Duke of Portland's MSS. i, 478. 



* Manning and Bray, iii. 674. The original papers on the matter were communicated to 

 Manning by Mr. William Smyth of Godalming, whose family lived at Peperharow in 1 649. Whitelocke 

 gives a petition from Surrey against free quarters in February, 1 6489, but it is apparently not the same 

 petition, and dealt with other matters, such as the appointment of magistrates and the abolition of tithes 

 as well as with free quarters. 



3 See list in Gardiner's Commonwealth and Protectorate, vol. xi. ch. xxviii. 



4 This remained the system of election till 1658 when Richard Cromwell altered it, LudMs 

 Memoirs, Firth ed. ii. 48. 



420 



