



Produced by Chris Curnow, Hazel Batey, Joseph Cooper and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net









  THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

      SIR ROGER L'ESTRANGE

        CITT AND BUMPKIN
             (1680)

         _INTRODUCTION_
               BY
           B. J. RAHN

         [Illustration]

      PUBLICATION NUMBER 117
  WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
  UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
             1965


GENERAL EDITORS

Earl Miner, _University of California, Angeles_

Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_

Lawrence Clark Powell, _Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library_


ADVISORY EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_

John Butt, _University of Edinburgh_

James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_

Ralph Cohen, _University of California, Los Angeles_

Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_

Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_

Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_

Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_

Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_

James Sutherland, _University College, London_

H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_


CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, _Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library_




INTRODUCTION


According to discoveries made by Titus Oates in the autumn of 1678,
England was threatened by a Roman Catholic conspiracy headed by the Pope
and the King of France, whose objectives were: 1) to murder the King, 2)
to overthrow the government, and 3) to destroy the Protestant religion.
Although Oates was subsequently exposed as a charlatan, in 1678-81 a
panic held the nation in an iron grip, and belief in the Plot fostered
irrational and reprehensible excesses. The Popish Plot was not so much a
religious fraud as a political _cause celebre_, the significance of
which can be assessed only in the context of the republican movement of
the seventeenth century to redistribute power within the state. The
conflict which developed between Charles II and the Parliament during
the 1670's reflects the struggle for ascendance of two opposing theories
of government: absolute versus limited monarchy. Charles, supported by
the Tories and the Anglican clergy, was determined to maintain all the
hereditary privileges and powers of an English monarch, while the Whig
coalition in Parliament, led by the Earl of Shaftesbury, was intent upon
subordinating the power of the Crown to the will of Parliament. The
Opposition realized almost immediately that in the Popish Plot lay means
for furthering their schemes of political reform. Under the guise of
counteracting the Plot, they hoped to enact legislation to: 1) increase
parliamentary power, 2) limit the prerogatives of the King, 3) control
the succession, and 4) curtail the influence of the prelacy. Published
in 1680 when the Plot crisis was at its peak, _Citt and Bumpkin_ is one
of a series of pamphlets by Sir Roger L'Estrange written to support the
policies of Charles II and to defend the government from attacks by the
Whig Opposition.

Since James, Duke of York, had given the Whigs every reason to believe
that he would oppose their policies vehemently after he came to the
throne, they decided to take advantage of the public resentment against
him as a Roman Catholic to try to pass a bill in Parliament to exclude
him from the succession. James had already been accused of conspiring
with the French King to overthrow Protestantism in England and institute
Roman Catholicism as the state religion. In addition to reiterating this
charge, the Whigs enlarged upon the awkwardness and danger bound to
arise in a Protestant nation with a Roman Catholic ruler. The question
of a Popish successor soon came to be the principal concern of
Parliament, and the battle over the Exclusion Bill dominated the
political scene in 1679-81. While the Exclusion crisis was at its
height, Charles II circumvented this plan to deprive the Duke of York of
his hereditary title by repeatedly proroguing and dissolving Parliament
so that the bill could not be brought to a final vote. This series of
adjournments began when Charles dissolved the Parliament soon after the
Exclusion Bill was first introduced in the spring of 1679. After a
bitterly fought election contest during the summer of 1679, the newly
constituted Parliament assembled in October only to be prorogued once
again until 26 January 1680. The Whigs were furious and began to fear
that the King had no intention of permitting the Parliament to meet even
in January. Powerless to act legally out of Parliament, the Whigs
realized that a long series of postponements would lead to the defeat of
all their carefully drafted legislative plans. To combat Charles'
delaying tactics, the Opposition hit upon the expedient of petitioning
him to allow Parliament to sit. By a strong demonstration of popular
will, they hoped to force the King to comply with their demands.

Under the leadership of Shaftesbury and his followers in the Green
Ribbon Club, the Whigs achieved a degree of party organization and
efficiency in the autumn and winter of 1679-80 which remained unrivalled
during the seventeenth century.[1] While petitions were being printed in
London, the country was divided into districts; then petitions were
distributed to party agents everywhere who systematically canvassed for
signatures. In London, blank petitions were conveniently placed in
coffee houses and taverns; pens and inkstands appeared in the Strand and
at the Royal Exchange. Since these petitions were designed as
instruments to convey the will of the masses, emphasis was placed on
collecting large numbers of signatures with scant concern for the
political, economic, or social status of the subscribers. According to
the Tory historian Roger North, the people were warned by the promoters
of the petitions that, if the King were allowed to govern without a
Parliament, despotism would inevitably ensue, followed by a resurgence
of Popery.[2] Frightened, and in some cases confused by these formidable
predictions and threats, many people (especially in the country)
subscribed. After the canvassing had been completed, the petitions were
sent to London for presentation to the King.

The petitions themselves were phrased inoffensively enough, stressing
the fact that the Popish Plot had created a state of national emergency
and requesting that Parliament be called to deal with this danger. The
first petition, _The Humble Address and Advice of several of the Peeres
of this Realm For the Sitting of the Parliament_, was presented to the
King at Whitehall on 7 December by ten Whig peers. Charles accepted the
petition and dismissed them. But he could not dismiss the rumors of
countless other petitions in preparation and the unavoidable disturbance
such an onslaught would produce. Since the petitions were not promoted
through official channels, and since there was evidence that they were
designed to create tumult for seditious ends, Charles denounced them as
illegal. Moreover, on 11 December the King issued a Royal Proclamation
forbidding seditious and tumultuous petitioning. The effects of the
Proclamation were twofold. The Tories, who objected to petitioning as a
popular movement carried on by men without substance or position,
received the Proclamation everywhere as an expression of the King's
disapproval, and cited it as an authority to discourage others from
promoting and subscribing to petitions. The Whigs, on the other hand,
protested that petitioning was the legal right of the subject and
resumed their petitioning activities with added vigor.

In order to demonstrate his firm resolve not to be intimidated in the
exercise of his prerogative to call and dismiss Parliament, and in order
to rob the petitioning movement of its impetus by destroying its
immediate objective, Charles issued a second Proclamation on 11 December
proroguing Parliament from 26 January to 11 November 1680. Spurred on by
the realization that so long a recess would utterly ruin their hopes,
the Whigs directed considerable effort toward promoting an official
petition from the City of London.[3] Because of the power and prestige
of the City, the Whigs felt that such a petition would lend
encouragement to those being prepared in the country. Accordingly, they
arranged to present a petition from the City of London for a vote in the
Common Council on 20 January. The King deliberately attempted to
frustrate the London petition by purging the City Council of disaffected
members through enforcement of the Act for Regulating Corporations. This
Act disqualified all Dissenters, who usually held Whig principles.
Consequently, by the time the petition was brought to a vote, the Tories
had gained enough support to defeat the referendum by a small margin.
Although this ballot was won in effect only by the votes of the Court of
Aldermen, it was accounted a great victory for the Court Party and left
the Whigs sorely disappointed.

The peak of petitioning activity occurred during the month of January,
and the atmosphere became increasingly more tense as the day approached
upon which Parliament was supposed to meet. The week following the
Common Council's rejection of the London petition was the most strained.
Petitions continued to appear daily, though the King received them with
marked disfavor and sharply rebuked the delegates who delivered them.
When Monday, 26 January, finally arrived, the air was charged with
excitement; everyone crowded to Westminster to see what would happen.
But Charles had no intention of capitulating. As soon as the Lords and
Commons were assembled, the King addressed them, reaffirming his
determination to prorogue them and implying that the recent petitions
had served only to strengthen his resolve. The Whigs complained bitterly
but offered no open resistance. Charles had won the day and emerged with
his prerogative untarnished but not unchallenged. Shortly after this
_coup_, a counter reaction to petitioning set in, and a wave of loyalty
gained momentum and found expression in the form of abhorrence addresses
which poured in from all over the kingdom condemning the practice of
petitioning and professing loyalty to King and Court.

A fortnight after the prorogation of Parliament, just before the tide of
abhorrence addresses began to inundate the capital, on 10 February,
Narcissus Luttrell (indefatigable collector of Popish Plot ephemera)
recorded possession of the most important pamphlet written about
petitioning--Sir Roger L'Estrange's _Citt and Bumpkin_. Whether the date
which Luttrell gives represents the day of publication as well as the
day of purchase is a matter of conjecture, but his note does establish
the fact that the pamphlet was available to the public and in Luttrell's
hands by 10 February. Corroboration that the pamphlet was in circulation
before the end of February comes also from L'Estrange's bookseller Henry
Brome, who first advertised _Citt and Bumpkin_ for sale as already
published in a list of pamphlets dated 27 February. On 5 March in the
_Popish Courant_, a companion sheet to _The Weekly Pacquet of Advice
from Rome_, a violently anti-<DW7> newspaper in which L'Estrange was
frequently traduced, Henry Care condemned _Citt and Bumpkin_ in a list
of Catholic libels, "All publisht within little more than this
fortnight." Although less precise than Luttrell's note, the references
by Brome and Care help confirm the hypothesis that _Citt and Bumpkin_
was published by mid-February. Further evidence which helps to define
the date of publication occurs within the text of the pamphlet itself.
On page 24, L'Estrange mentions Henry Care's _History of the Dam