ments of the country gentlemen consisted of three questions. Every magistrate and deputy lieutenant was to be asked, first, whether, if he should be chosen to serve in Parliament, he would vote for a bill framed on the principles of the Declaration of Indulgence; secondly, whether, as an elector, he would support candidates who would engage to vote for such a bill; and, thirdly, whether, in his private capacity, he would aid the king's benevolent designs by living in friendship with people of all religious persuasions.*

As soon as the questions got abroad, a form of answer, drawn up with admirable skill, was circulated all over the kingdom, and was generally adopted. It was to the following effect: "As a member of the House of Commons, should I have the honor of a seat there, I shall think it my duty carefully to weigh such reasons as may be adduced in debate for and against a bill of Indulgence, and then to vote according to my conscientious conviction. As an elector, I shall give my support to candidates whose notions of the duty of a representative agree with my own. As a private man, it is my wish to live in peace and charity with every body." This answer, far more provoking than a direct refusal, because slightly tinged with a sober and decorous irony which could not well be resented, was all that the emissaries of the court could extract from most of the country gentlemen. Arguments, promises, threats, were tried in vain. The Duke of Norfolk, though a Protestant, and though dissatisfied with the measures of the government, had consented to become its agent in two counties. He went first to Surrey, where he soon found that nothing could be done.† He then repaired to Norfolk, and returned to inform the king that, of seventy gentlemen of note who bore office in that great province, only six had held out hopes that they should support the policy of the court. The Duke of Beaufort, whose authority

extended over four English shires and over the whole principality of Wales, came up to Whitehall with an account not less discouraging.* Rochester was lord lieutenant of Hertfordshire. All his little stock of virtue had been expended in his struggle against the strong temptation to sell his religion for lucre. He was still bound to the court by a pension of four thousand pounds a year; and, in return for this pension, he was willing to perform any service, however illegal or degrading, provided only that he were not required to go through the forms of a reconciliation with Rome. He had readily undertaken to manage his county; and he exerted himself, as usual, with indiscreet heat and violence. But his anger was thrown away on the sturdy squires to whom he addressed himself. They told him with one voice that they would send up no man to Parliament who would vote for taking away the safeguards of the Protestant religion. The same answer was given to the chancellor in Buckinghamshire. The gentry of Shropshire, assembled at Ludlow, unanimously refused to fetter themselves by the pledge which the king demanded of them.§ Lord Yarmouth reported from Wiltshire that, of sixty magistrates and deputy lieutenants with whom he had conferred, only seven had given favorable answers, and that even those seven could not be trusted. The renegade Peterborough made no progress in Northamptonshire. His brother renegade Dover was equally unsuccessful in Cambridgeshire.** Preston brought cold news from Cumberland and Westmoreland. Dorsetshire and Huntingdonshire were animated by the same spirit. The Earl of Bath, after a long canvass, returned from the West with gloomy tidings. He had been authorized to make the most tempting offers to the inhab

+ Rochester's offensive warmth on this occasion is twice noticed by John stone, Nov. 25 and Dec. 8, 1687. His failure is mentioned by Citters, Dec.

itants of that region. In particular, he had promised that, if proper respect were shown to the royal wishes, the trade in tin should be freed from the oppressive restrictions under which it lay; but this lure, which at another time would have proved irresistible, was now slighted. All the justices and deputy lieutenants of Devonshire and Cornwall, without a single dissenting voice, declared that they would put life and property in jeopardy for the king, but that the Protestant religion was dearer to them than either life or property. "And, sir," said Bath, "if your majesty should dismiss all these gentlemen, their successors will give exactly the same answer."* If there was any district in which the government might have hoped for success, that district was Lancashire. Considerable doubts had been felt as to the result of what was passing there. In no part of the realm had so many opulent and honorable families adhered to the old religion. The heads of many of those families had already, by virtue of the dispensing power, been made justices of the peace and intrusted with commands in the militia. Yet from Lancashire the new lord lieutenant, himself a Roman Catholic, reported that two thirds of his deputies and of the magistrates were opposed to the court. But the proceedings in Hampshire wounded the king's pride still more deeply. Arabella Churchill had, more than twenty years before, borne him a son, afterward widely renowned as one of the most skillful captains of Europe. The youth, named James Fitzjames, had as yet given no promise of the eminence which he afterward attained; but his manners were so gentle and inoffensive that he had no enemy except Mary of Modena, who had long hated the child of the concubine with the bitter hatred of a childless wife. A small part of the Jesuitical faction had, before the pregnancy of the queen was announced, seriously thought of setting him

Citters, April 18, 1688.

The anxiety about Lancashire is mentioned by Citters, in a dispatch dated Nov. 1, 1687; the result in a dispatch dated four days later.

up as a competitor of the Princess of Orange.* When it is remembered how signally Monmouth, though believed by the populace to be legitimate, and though the champion of the national religion, had failed in a similar competition, it must seem extraordinary that any man should have been so much blinded by fanaticism as to think of placing on the throne one who was universally known to be a popish bastard. It does not appear that this absurd design was ever countenanced by the king. The boy, however, was acknowledged; and whatever distinctions a subject, not of the royal blood, could hope to attain, were bestowed on him. He had been created Duke of Berwick; and he was now loaded with honorable and lucrative employments, taken from those noblemen who had refused to comply with the royal commands. He succeeded the Earl of Oxford as colonel of the Blues, and the Earl of Gainsborough as lord lieutenant of Hampshire, ranger of the New Forest, and governor of Portsmouth. On the frontier of Hampshire Berwick expected to have been met, according to custom, by a long cavalcade of baronets, knights, and squires, but not a single person of note appeared to welcome him. He sent out letters commanding the attendance of the gentry, but only five or six paid the smallest attention to his summons. The rest did not wait to be dismissed. They declared that they would take no part in the civil or military government of their county while the king was represented there by a papist, and voluntarily laid down their commissions.†

Sunderland, who had been named lord lieutenant of Warwickshire in the room of the Earl of Northampton, found some excuse for not going down to face the indignation and contempt of the gentry of that shire; and his plea was the more readily admitted because the king had, by this time, begun to feel that the spirit of the rustic gentry was not to be bent.‡

It is to be observed that those who displayed this spirit were not the old enemies of the house of Stuart. The * Bonrepaux, July 11, 1687. † Citters, Feb., 1688. Ibid., April, 1688.

commissions of peace and lieutenancy had long been carefully purged of all Republican names. The persons from whom the court had in vain attempted to extract any promise of support were, with scarcely an exception, Tories. The elder among them could still show scars given by the swords of Roundheads, and receipts for plate sent to Charles the First in his distress. The younger had adhered firmly to James against Shaftesbury and Monmouth. Such were the men who were now turned out of office in a mass by the very prince to whom they had given such signal proofs of fidelity. Dismission, however, only made them more resolute. It had become a sacred point of honor among them to stand stoutly by one another in this crisis. There could be no doubt that, if the suffrage of the freeholders were fairly taken, not a single knight of the shire favorable to the policy of the government would be returned. Men therefore asked one another, with no small anxiety, whether the suffrages were likely to be fairly taken. The list of the sheriffs for the new year was impatiently expected. It appeared while the lords lieutenants were still engaged in their canvass, and was received with a general cry of alarm and indignation. Most of the functionaries who were to preside at the county elections were either Roman Catholics or Protestant Dissenters who had expressed their approbation of the Indulgence. For a time the most gloomy apprehensions prevailed; but soon they began to subside. There was good reason to believe that there was a point beyond which the king could not reckon on the support even of those sheriffs who were members of his own Church. Between the Roman Catholic courtier and the Roman Catholic country gentleman there was very little sympathy. That cabal which domineered at Whitehall consisted partly of fanatics, who were ready to break through all rules of morality, and to throw the world into confusion for the purpose of propagating their religion, and partly of hypocrites, who, for lucre, had apostatized from the faith in which they had London Gazette, Dec. 5, 1687; Citters, Dec.