POLITICAL HISTORY 



James dissolved his first and only Parliament on 2 July 1687,*" and, 

 vvith a view to the election of a fresh House of Commons, the lord- 

 lieutenants were instructed to assemble the deputy lieutenants and justices 

 of the peace, and ask them three questions : (i) would they if elected vote 

 for the repeal of the Test and Penal Laws ? (ii) would they as voters vote for 

 such as would? (iii) would they live in peace with those of another religion ? *^* 

 ' Several lord-lieutenants who refused to execute this order were turned out 

 and Papists put in their places, and the deputy-lieutenants and justices of the 

 peace who did not give a satisfactory answer were generally displaced. This 

 was, indeed, putting the thing too far . . . besides, it struck at the very 

 foundation of Parliaments.'*^' Such are the words of Reresby, himself a 

 courtier, and one who had not been unwilling to do much doubtful work in 

 support of the Crown. But Thomas Earl of Ailesbury, who had succeeded 

 his father in October 1685*^* as lord-lieutenant of Bedfordshire, was not 

 one of those who refused to put the questions, and the answers he received 

 are on record. Sir George Blundell, Sir John Collins, Sir Richard Abbot, 

 Sir Edmund Gardiner, and Thomas Dockra refused to pre-engage themselves ; 

 Benjamin Conquest and Thomas Christie would comply with the king's 

 wishes as far as their consciences allowed ; John Osborn, Sir Anthony 

 Chester, William Butler, Charles Leigh, Sir William Gostwick, Sir Villiers 

 Chernock, Richard Orlebar, and the two Farrers (father and son), Thomas 

 and Ralph Bromsall, John Ventriss, and John Harvey were all opposed to 

 abrogating the Penal and Test Laws, though the Bromsalls would relieve the 

 king himself, and Ventriss would relieve Roman Catholics. Dr. William 

 Foster alone 'submits all to his majesty's pleasure.'*^^ Meanwhile the 

 Earl of Ailesbury and the Earl of Peterborough (who had lately become 

 a Roman Catholic) were in correspondence with John Eston, the son of the 

 John Eston who was one of the founders of the congregation over which 

 John Bunyan then presided. Eston wrote to Ailesbury in November 1689 

 that he had conferred with ' Mr. Bunyan, pastor of the Dissenting Congre- 

 gation in this town,' and other heads of the Dissenters, and found them 

 unanimous for electing members who would vote for the repeal of the Test 

 and Penal Laws ; all that was wanted was that the lord-lieutenant should 

 assist with his influence over the Church party .^''^ It was decided to propose 

 John Eston and Dr. Foster as borough members, and in December the former 

 writes to Peterborough that ' the Dissenters are firm ' for them, but that the 

 clergy and several corporation officers ' do labour pro arts etfocis ' in opposition 

 to their candidature, because they are in favour of repeal, and as the king's 

 nominees. He writes as a strong supporter of sovereign power, and in 

 disparagement of ' the Democracie ' that is ' so much mixed in the govern- 

 ment.' The Crown was prompt in its support, and an Order in Council 

 removed Thomas Underwood the mayor and other aldermen and councillors ; 

 while all elected in their stead were dispensed from any tests or oaths other 

 than for the execution of their offices. In March Paul Cobb and three other 

 aldermen and two councillors were removed and their places filled, but Cobb 

 was to remain (deputy) clerk of the peace. Of those brought in six or seven 



Ret. ofMmh. of Pari. '" Reresby, op. cit. 387 (17 Dec. 1687). 



«' Ibid. 388-9. "* Ibid. 343. 



Brown, John Bunyan, 360-1. "° Ibid. 362-3. 



59 



<ii 



<u 



