measure,
certain seditious expressions, which, he said, had, in their accusation
of the duke, dropped from these members. Upon inquiry, it appeared that
no such expressions had been used.[***] The members were released; and
the king reaped no other benefit from this attempt than to exasperate
the house still, and to show some degree of precipitancy and
indiscretion.

Moved by this example, the house of peers were roused from their
inactivity; and claimed liberty for the earl of Arundel, who had been
lately confined in the Tower. After many fruitless evasions, the king,
though somewhat ungracefully, was at last obliged to comply.[****] And
in this incident it sufficiently appeared, that the lords, how little
soever inclined to popular courses, were not wanting in a just sense of
their own dignity.

* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 359. Whitlocke, p. 6.

** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 356.

*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 358, 361. Franklyn, p. 180.

**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 363, 364, etc. Franklyn, p. 181.

The ill humor of the commons, thus wantonly irritated by the court, and
finding no gratification in the legal impeachment of Buckingham, sought
other objects on which it might exert itself. The never-failing cry of
Popery here served them in stead. They again claimed the execution of
the penal laws against Catholics; and they presented to the king a list
of persons intrusted with offices, most of them insignificant who were
either convicted or suspected recusants.[*] In this particular they had,
perhaps, some reason to blame the king's conduct. He had promised to the
last house of commons a redress of this religious grievance: but he was
apt, in imitation of his father, to imagine that the parliament, when
they failed of supplying his necessities, had, on their part, freed him
from the obligation of a strict performance. A new odium, likewise, by
these representations, was attempted to be thrown upon Buckingham. His
mother, who had great influence over him, was a professed Catholic; his
wife was not free from suspicion: and the indulgence given to Catholics
was of course supposed to proceed entirely from his credit and
authority. So violent was the bigotry of the times, that it was thought
a sufficient reason for disqualifying any one from holding an office,
that his wife, or relations, or companions were Papists, though he
himself were a conformist.[**]

It is remarkable, that persecution was here chiefly p