POLITICAL HISTORY 



December, but they were disbanded when it was found that the report 

 was false. On that occasion Sir Christopher Musgrave and Sir George 

 Fletcher found themselves at the head of 3,000 men. 1 In any case, the 

 Cumberland levies could have been of little value as a fighting force, for 

 they had not been mustered during the lieutenancy of Lord Preston, and 

 their arms were taken from them in the late king's time. 2 



The parliament elected in 1661 sat for eighteen sessions and was 

 in reality the Long Parliament, though that title has been accorded to 

 the last parliament of Charles I. Cumberland was represented in it 

 from January 1665 by Sir John Lowther of Whitehaven, and Westmor- 

 land had for one of its members from 1677 his cousin, Sir John Lowther 

 of Lowther. 3 These two members of the Lowther family continued to 

 represent their respective counties for a long period : Sir John of White- 

 haven, in every parliament down to 1700, and Sir John of Lowther, 

 with a brief interval in 1679, down to 1696, when he was called to the 

 upper house as Viscount Lonsdale. They were of great business 

 capacity and commanding influence, and their long tenure of the repre- 

 sentation, almost unbroken, marks the growing position of the house of 

 Lowther in the political affairs of the two northern counties. Thus Sir 

 John Lowther of Whitehaven could write to Sir Daniel Fleming of 

 Rydal on the eve of the election in 1 679 : ' I and Lord Morpeth stand 

 for Cumberland, Sir Richard Graham for Cockermouth, Sir Philip 

 Howard and Sir Christopher Musgrave for Carlisle, all agreed.' 4 It 

 was an influence deserved by high character and good service. They 

 belonged to the moderate country party and acted with the Whigs in 

 resistance to the reactionary policy of Charles II., and in the attempt to 

 exclude his brother James from the throne. 8 



When James II. attempted to pack the parliament with his own 

 supporters, the Lowthers stood firm for the constitutional party. No 

 effort, however unscrupulous, was spared on the king's part. The 

 lords lieutenants were sent down to their counties with instructions to 

 issue interrogatories to the justices of the peace to ascertain how they 

 would vote at the next election. Many refused to discharge the odious 

 service and were dismissed. The Earl of Thanet was deprived of his 

 lieutenancy, and Viscount Preston, the third baronet of the family of 

 Graham of Netherby, was appointed in his stead. 8 He came down, 

 but he returned with ' cold news from Cumberland and Westmorland,' 7 



Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. (Rydal MSS.), xii. App. vii. 227, 231. Ibid. 267, 331. 



3 Parliaments of England (Blue Book), i. 521, 530. 



Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. (Rydal MSS.), xii. App. vii. 155. 



6 Lord Lonsdale, Memoir of James 11. pp. ix.-x. 



6 The commission of lieutenancy of Westmorland and Cumberland to Thomas, Earl of Thanet, is 

 dated 3 March 1685 (Pat. I James II. pt. i. No. 14), and to Richard, Viscount Preston, revoking that to 

 the Earl of Thanet, is dated 29 August 1687 (Pat. 3 James II. pt. 8, No. 4d). See Def. Keeper's Rep. 

 xlii. App. p. 728. 



7 Macaulay, Hist, of England (ed. 1858), iii. 63. The king's instructions to the lord lieutenant of 

 Cumberland and Westmorland will be found in Memoirs of Great Britain (ed. 1771-3), iii. 129-30, printed 

 by Sir John Dalrymple from Lord Pres'on's despatch book at Netherby. By the last article Preston was 

 required to inform the king ' wha- ^atholicks and what dissenters are fit to be added either to the list 

 of the deputy lieutenants or to the commission of the peace throughout the said lieutenancy.' 



295 



