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-Papist 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 Damnable Popish Plot and says it appeared on 26 January. This date in turn is verified by two advertisements for the work in Care's own journal—one on 23 January announcing its impending release, and another on 30 January commenting on its recent publication. Since Citt and Bumpkin obviously appeared after Care's tract was released and before Luttrell's entry was made, it must have been published during the fortnight between 26 January and 10 February.

Citt and Bumpkin was not only the best written pamphlet on petitioning, it was also the most ambitious in scope. Arranging his material artfully, L'Estrange presented it with the wit and skill that demonstrate unequivocably his mastery of the polemic medium. Unlike most other party writers who confined their efforts to a few folio pages, L'Estrange sustained his performance through 38 quarto leaves of readable, entertaining prose. Moreover, his objectives and arguments were much more comprehensive and sophisticated than those of the other pamphleteers engaged in the controversy over petitioning. Most Tory writers treated petitioning as an isolated issue and directed their attack accordingly, failing to relate any of their arguments to each other or to a larger scheme. Many authors attempted to defeat petitioning by identifying the petitions of 1680 with those of the 1640's leading up to the Civil War. In addition, some insisted that petitioning was illegal and defended the Proclamation against it, while others tried to discredit the organizers and promoters of petitions as disaffected persons motivated by hopes of preferment and profit. At the same time, they launched a collateral attack upon those members of Parliament who actively encouraged petitioning. There was even a general indictment of Parliament as a whole, suggesting that it intended to usurp the King's prerogatives and take sovereignty upon itself. But there was no definite, direct statement that a plot led by the petition managers was actually underway to subvert the government. In Citt and Bumpkin L'Estrange accused the republicans and Dissenters of actively promoting a Protestant Plot more insidious than the Popish Plot but with identical goals: 1) to kill the King, 2) to undermine the government, and 3) to destroy the established Church of England. Throughout the pamphlet, which is an exposé of this alleged conspiracy, L'Estrange supplied a great deal of specific factual detail upholding his claims. His objective was not merely to discredit petitioning, but to lessen belief in the Popish Plot and to launch a counterattack against the enemies of the Court. By indicating that petitioning was not an end in itself but an integral part of a larger plan, L'Estrange managed to censure petitioning per se, to increase its