[1] For 1906 the _Yearbook_ of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
reported the following statistics for Arkansas:--Indian corn,
52,802,659 bu., valued at $24,817,207; oats 3,783,706 bu., valued at
$1,589,157; wheat, 1,915,250 bu., valued at $1,436,438; rice, 131,440
bu., valued at $111,724; rye, 23,652 bu., valued at $19,631;
potatoes, 1,666,960 bu., valued at $1,116,863; hay, 113,491 tons,
valued at $1,123,561.
[2] The special census of the manufacturing industry for 1905 was
concerned only with the establishment conducted under the so-called
"factory system"; for purposes of comparison the figures for 1900
have been reduced to the same standard, and this fact should be borne
in mind with regard to the percentages of increase given above.
[3] During this period Robert Crittenden, the secretary of the
territory, was frequently the acting governor.
[4] Robert Crittenden was acting governor in 1828-1829.
[5] Samuel Adams was acting governor from the 29th of April to the
9th of November 1844.
[6] R.C. Byrd was acting governor from the 11th of January to the 19th
of April 1849.
[7] Thomas Fletcher was acting governor from the 4th to the 15th of
November 1862.
[8] Confederate governor.
[9] Union governor.
[10] United States military (sub) governor.
[11] Acting governor.
ARKANSAS CITY, a city of Cowley county, Kansas, U.S.A., situated near
the S. boundary of the state, in the fork of the Arkansas and Walnut
rivers. Pop. (1890) 8347; (1900) 6140, of whom 302 were negroes; (1905)
7634; (1910) 7508. The city is served by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa
Fe, the Missouri Pacific, the St Louis & San Francisco, the Midland
Valley and the Kansas South-Western railways. To the south is the
Chilocco Indian school (in Key county, Oklahoma), established by the
U.S. government in 1884. A canal joining the Arkansas and Walnut rivers
furnishes good water power. The manufactories include flour mills,
packing establishments, a creamery and a paint factory. The city is
situated in the midst of a rich agricultural region and is a supply
centre for southern Kansas and Oklahoma, with large jobbing interests.
The municipality owns and operates the waterworks. Arkansas City, first
known as Creswell, was settled in 1870, was chartered as a city under
its present name in 1872 and was rechartered in 1880.
ARKLOW, a seaport and market town of Co. Wicklow, Ireland, in the east
parliamentary division, 49 m. S. of Dublin, by the Dublin &
South-Eastern railway. Pop. (1901) 4944. Sea-fisheries are prosecuted,
and there are oyster-beds on the coast, but the produce requires to be
freed from a peculiar flavour by the purer waters of the Welsh and
English coast before it is fit for food. The produce of the copper and
lead mines of the Vale of Avoca is shipped from the port. There are
cordite and explosives works, established by Messrs Kynoch of
Birmingham, England. In 1882 an act was passed providing for the
improvement of the harbour and for the appointment of harbour
commissioners. The town hall and the Protestant church (1899) were gifts
of the earl of Carysfort, in whose property the town is situated. There
are slight ruins of an ancient castle of the Ormondes, demolished in
1649 by Cromwell. On the 9th of June 1798 the Irish insurgents,
attacking the town, were defeated by the royal troops near Arklow
Bridge, and their leader, Father Michael Murphy, was killed.
ARKWRIGHT, SIR RICHARD (1732-1792), English inventor, was born at
Preston in Lancashire, on the 23rd of December 1732, of parents in
humble circumstances. He was the youngest of thirteen children, and
received but a very indifferent education. After serving his
apprenticeship in his native town, he established himself as a barber at
Bolton about 1750, and later amassed a little property from dealing in
human hair and dyeing it by a process of his own. This business he gave
up about 1767 in order to devote himself to the construction of the
spinning frame. The spinning jenny, which was patented by James
Hargreaves (d. 1778), a carpenter of Blackburn, Lancashire, in 1770,
though he had invented it some years earlier, gave the means of spinning
twenty or thirty threads at once with no more labour than had previously
been required to spin a single thread. The thread spun by the jenny
could not, however, be used except as weft, being destitute of the
firmness or hardness required in the longitudinal threads or warp.
Arkwright supplied this deficiency by the invention of the
spinning-frame, which spins a vast number of threads of any degree of
fineness and hardness.
The precise date of the invention is not known; but in 1767 he employed
John Kay, a watchmaker at Warrington, to assist him in the preparation
of the parts of his machine, and he took out a patent for it in 1769.
The first model was set up in the parlour of the house belonging to the
free grammar school at Preston. This invention having been brought to a
fairly advanced stage, he removed to Nottingham in 1768, accompanied by
Kay and John Smalley of Preston, and there erected his first spinning
mill, which was worked by horses. But his operations were at first
greatly fettered by want of capital, until Jedediah Strutt (q.v.),
having satisfied himself of the value of the machines, entered with his
partner, Samuel Need, into partnership with him, and enabled him in 1771
to build a second factory, on a much larger scale, at Cromford in
Derbyshire, the machinery of which was turned by a water-wheel. A fresh
patent, taken out in 1775, covered several additional improvements in
the processes of carding, roving and spinning. As the value of his
processes became known, he began to be troubled with infringements of
his patents, and in 1781 he took action in the courts to vindicate his
rights. In the first case, against Colonel Mordaunt, who was supported
by a combination of manufacturers, the decision was unfavourable to him,
on the sole ground that the description of the machinery in the
specification was obscure and indistinct. In consequence he prepared a
"case," which he at one time intended to lay before parliament, as the
foundation of an application for an act for relief. But this intention
was subsequently abandoned; and in a new trial (_Arkwright_ v.
_Nightingale_) in February 1785, the presiding judge having expressed
himself favourably with respect to the sufficiency of the specification,
a verdict was given for Arkwright. On this, as on the former trial,
nothing was stated against the originality of the invention.
In consequence of these conflicting verdicts, the whole matter was
brought, by a writ of _scire facias_, before the court of King's Bench,
to have the validity of the patent finally settled, and it was not till
this third trial, which took place in June 1785, that Arkwright's claim
to the inventions which formed the subject of the patent was disputed.
To support this new allegation, Arkwright's opponents brought forward,
for the first time, Thomas Highs, or Hayes, a reed-maker at Bolton, who
stated that he had invented a machine for spinning by rollers previously
to 1768, and that he had employed the watchmaker Kay to make a model of
that machine. Kay himself was produced to prove that he had communicated
that model to Arkwright, and that this was the real source of all his
pretended inventions. Having no idea that any attempt was to be made to
overturn the patent on this new ground, Arkwright's counsel were not
prepared with evidence to repel this statement, and the verdict went
against him. On a motion for a new trial on the 10th of November of the
same year it was stated that he was furnished with affidavits
contradicting the evidence that had been given by Kay and others with
respect to the originality of the invention; but the court refused to
grant a new trial, on the ground that, whatever might be the fact as to
the question of originality, the deficiency in the specification was
enough to sustain the verdict, and the cancellation of the patents was
ordered a few days afterwards. His fortunes, however, were not thereby
seriously affected, for by this time his business capacity and
organizing skill had enabled him to consolidate his position, in spite
of the difficulties he had encountered not only from rival manufacturers
but also from the working classes, who in 1779 displayed their antipathy
to labour-saving appliances by destroying a large mill he had erected
near Chorley.
Though a man of great personal strength, Arkwright never enjoyed good
health, and throughout his career of invention and discovery he
laboured under a severe asthmatic affection. A complication of disorders
at length terminated his life on the 3rd of August 1792, at his works at
Cromford. He was knighted in 1786 when he presented a congratulatory
address from the wapentake of Wirksworth to George III., on his escape
from the attempt on his life by Margaret Nicholson.
ARLES, a town of south-eastern France, capital of an arrondissement in
the department of Bouches-du-Rhone, 54 m. N.W. of Marseilles by rail.
Pop. (1906) 16,191. A canal unites Arles with the harbour of Bouc on the
Mediterranean. Arles stands on the left bank of the Rhone, just below
the point at which the river divides to form its delta. A tubular bridge
unites it with the suburb of Trinquetaille on the opposite bank. The
town is hemmed in on the east by the railway line from Lyons to
Marseilles, on the south by the Canal de Craponne. Its streets are
narrow and irregular, and, away from the promenades which border it on
the south, there is little animation. In the centre of the town stand
the Place de la Republique, a spacious square overlooked by the hotel de
ville, the museum, and the old cathedral of St Trophime, the finest
Romanesque church in Provence. Founded in the 7th century, St Trophime
has been several times rebuilt, and was restored in 1870. Its chief
portal, which dates from the 12th century, is a masterpiece of graceful
arrangement and rich carving. The interior, plain in itself, contains
interesting sculpture. The choir opens into a beautiful cloister, the
massive vaulting of which is supported on heavy piers adorned with
statuary, between which intervene slender columns arranged in pairs and
surmounted by delicately carved capitals. Two of the galleries are
Romanesque, while two are Gothic. Arles has two other churches of the
Romanesque period, and others of later date. The hotel de ville, a
building of the 17th century, contains the library. Its clock tower,
surmounted by a statue of Mars, dates from the previous century. The
museum, occupying an old Gothic church, is particularly rich in Roman
remains and in early Christian sarcophagi; there is also a museum of
Provencal curiosities. The tribunal of commerce and the communal college
are the chief public institutions. Arles is not a busy town and its port
is of little importance. There are, however, flour mills, oil and soap
works, and the Paris-Lyon-Mediterranee Railway Company have large
workshops. Sheep-breeding is a considerable industry in the vicinity.
The women of Arles have long enjoyed a reputation for marked beauty, but
the distinctive type is fast disappearing owing to their intermarriage
with strangers who have immigrated to the town.
Arles still possesses many monuments of Roman architecture and art, the
most remarkable being the ruins of an amphitheatre (the _Arenes_),
capable of containing 25,000 spectators, which, in the 11th and 12th
centuries, was flanked with massive towers, of which three are still
standing. There are also a theatre, in which, besides the famous Venus
of Arles, discovered in 1651, many other remains have been found; an
ancient obelisk of a single block, 47 ft. high, standing since 1676 in
the Place de la Republique; the ruins of the palace of Constantine, the
forum, the thermae and the remains of the Roman ramparts and of
aqueducts. There is, besides, a Roman cemetery known as the Aliscamps
(_Elysii Campi_), consisting of a short avenue once bordered by tombs,
of which a few still remain.
The ancient town, _Arelate_, was an important place at the time of the
invasion of Julius Caesar, who made it a settlement for his veterans. It
was pillaged in A.D. 270, but restored and embellished by Constantine,
who made it his principal residence, and founded what is now the suburb
of Trinquetaille. Under Honorius, it became the seat of the prefecture
of the Gauls and one of the foremost cities in the western empire. Its
bishopric founded by St Trophimus in the 1st century, was in the 5th
century the primatial see of Gaul; it was suppressed in 1790. After the
fall of the Roman empire the city passed into the power of the
Visigoths, and rapidly declined. It was plundered in 730 by the
Saracens, but in the 10th century became the capital of the kingdom of
Arles (see below). In the 12th century it was a free city, governed by a
_podesta_ and _consuls_ after the model of the Italian republics, which
it also emulated in commerce and navigation. In 1251 it submitted to
Charles I. of Anjou, and from that time onwards followed the fortunes of
Provence. A number of ecclesiastical synods have been held at Arles, as
in 314 (see below), 354, 452 and 475.
See V. Clair, _Monuments d'Arles_ (1837); J.J. Estrangin,
_Description de la ville d'Arles_ (1845); F. Beissier, _Le Pays
d'Arles_ (1889); Roger Peyre, _Nimes, Arles, Orange_ (1903).
(R. Tr.)
_Synod of Arles (314)._--As negotiations held at Rome in October 313 had
failed to settle the dispute between the Catholics and the Donatists,
the emperor Constantine summoned the first general council of his
western half of the empire to meet at Arles by the 1st of August
following. The attempt of Seeck to date the synod 316 presupposes that
the emperor was present in person, which is highly improbable.
Thirty-three bishops are included in the most authentic list of
signatures, among them three from Britain,--York, London and "Colonia
Londinensium" (probably a corruption of Lindensium, or Lincoln, rather
than of Legionensium or Caerleon-On-Usk). The twenty-two canons deal
chiefly with the discipline of clergy and people. Husbands of adulterous
wives are advised not to remarry during the lifetime of the guilty
party. Reiteration of baptism in the name of the Trinity is forbidden.
For the consecration of a bishop at least three bishops are required. It
is noteworthy that British representatives assented to Canon I.,
providing that Easter be everywhere celebrated on the same day: the
later divergence between Rome and the Celtic church is due to
improvements in the _supputatio Romana_ adopted at Rome in 343 and
subsequently.
For the canons see Mansi ii. 471 ff.; Bruns ii. 107 ff.; Lauchert 26
ff. See also W. Smith and S. Cheetham, _Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities_ (Boston, 1875), i. 141 ff. (contains also notices of
later synods at Arles); W. Bright, _Chapters of Early English Church
History_ (2nd edition, Oxford, 1888), 9 f.; Herzog-Hauck,
_Realencyklopadie_ (3rd edition), ii. 59, x. 238 ff.; W. Moller,
_Kirchengeschichte_ (2nd edition by H. von Schubert, Tubingen, 1902),
i. 417. For full titles see COUNCIL. (W. W. R.*)
ARLES, KINGDOM OF, the name given to the kingdom formed about 933 by the
union of the old kingdoms of Provence (q.v.) or Cisjurane Burgundy, and
Burgundy (q.v.) Transjurane, and bequeathed in 1032 by its last
sovereign, Rudolph III., to the emperor Conrad II. It comprised the
countship of Burgundy (_Franche-Comte_), part of which is now
Switzerland (the dioceses of Geneva, Lausanne, Sion and part of that of
Basel), the Lyonnais, and the whole of the territory bounded by the
Alps, the Mediterranean and the Rhone; on the right bank of the Rhone it
further included the Vivarais. It is only after the end of the 12th
century that the name "kingdom of Arles" is applied to this district;
formerly it was known generally as the kingdom of Burgundy, but under
the Empire the name of Burgundy came to be limited more and more to the
countship of Burgundy, and the districts lying beyond the Jura. The
authority of Rudolph III. over the chief lords of the land, the count of
Burgundy and the count of Maurienne, founder of the house of Savoy, was
already merely nominal, and the Franconian emperors (1039-1125), whose
visits to the country were rare and of short duration, did not establish
their power any more firmly. During the first fifty years of their
domination they could rely on the support of the ecclesiastical
feudatories, who generally favoured their cause, but the investiture
struggle, in which the prelates of the kingdom of Arles mostly sided
with the pope, deprived the Germanic sovereigns even of this support.
The emperors, on the other hand, realized early that their absence from
the country was a grave source of weakness; in 1043 Henry III. conferred
on Rudolph, count of Rheinfelden (afterwards duke of Swabia), the title
of _dux et rector Burgundiae_, giving him authority over the barons of
the northern part of the kingdom of Arles. Towards the middle of the
12th century Lothair II. revived this system, conferring the rectorate
on Conrad of Zahringen, in whose family it remained hereditary up to the
death of the last representative of the house, Berthold V., in 1218; and
it was the lords of Zahringen who were foremost in defending the cause
of the Empire against its chief adversaries, the counts of Burgundy. In
the time of the Swabian emperors, the Germanic sovereignty in the
kingdom of Arles was again, during almost the whole period, merely
nominal, and it was only in consequence of fortuitous circumstances that
certain of the heads of the Empire were able to exercise a real
authority in these parts. Frederick I., by his marriage with Beatrix
(1156), had become uncontested master of the countship of Burgundy;
Frederick II., who was more powerful in Italy than his predecessors had
been, and was extending his activities into the countries of the Levant,
found Provence more accessible to his influence, thanks to the
commercial relations existing between the great cities of this country
and Italy and the East. Moreover, the heretics and enemies of the
church, who were numerous in the south, upheld the emperor in his
struggle against the pope. Henry VII. also, thanks to his good relations
with the princes of Savoy, succeeded in exercising a certain influence
over a part of the kingdom of Arles. The emperors further tried to make
their power more effective by delegating it, first to a viceroy, William
of Baux, prince of Orange (1215), then to an imperial vicar, William of
Montferrat (1220), who was succeeded by Henry of Revello and William of
Manupello. In spite of this, the history of the kingdom of Arles in the
13th century, and still more in the 14th, is distinguished particularly
by the decline of the imperial authority and the progress of French
influence in the country. In 1246 the marriage of Charles, the brother
of Saint Louis, with Beatrice, the heiress to the countship of Provence,
caused Provence to pass into the hands of the house of Anjou, and many
plans were made to win the whole of the kingdom for a prince of this
house. At the beginning of the 14th century the bishops of Lyons and
Viviers recognized the suzerainty of the king of France, and in 1343
Humbert II., dauphin of Viennois, made a compact with the French king
Philip VI. that on his death his inheritance should pass to a son or a
grandson of the French king. Humbert, who was perhaps the most powerful
noble in Arles, was induced to take this step as he had just lost his
only son, and Philip had already cast covetous eyes on his lands. Then
in 1349, being in want of money, he agreed to sell his possessions
outright, and thus Viennois, or Dauphine, passed into the hands of
Philip's grandson, afterwards King Charles V. The emperor Charles IV.
took an active part in the affairs of the kingdom, but without any
consistent policy, and in 1378 he, in turn, ceded the imperial vicariate
of the kingdom to the dauphin, afterwards King Charles VI. This date may
be taken as marking the end of the history of the kingdom of Arles,
considered as an independent territorial area.
See the monumental work of P. Fournier, _Le Royaume d'Arles et de
Vienne_ (Paris, 1890); Leroux, _Recherches critiques sur les relations
politiques de la France avec l'Allemagne de 1292 a 1378_ (Paris,
1882). For the early history of the kingdom, L. Jacob, _Le Royaume de
Bourgogne sous les empereurs franconiens_ (_1038-1129_), (Paris,
1906). The question of the nature and extent of the rights of the
Empire over the kingdom of Arles has given rise, ever since the 16th
century, to numerous juridical polemics; the chief dissertations
published on this subject are indicated in A. Leroux, _Bibliographie
des conflits entre la France et l'Empire_ (Paris, 1902). (R. Po.)
ARLINGTON, HENRY BENNET, EARL OF (1618-1685), English statesman, son of
Sir John Bennet of Dawley, Middlesex, and of Dorothy Crofts, was
baptized at Little Saxham, Suffolk, in 1618, and was educated at
Westminster school and Christ Church, Oxford. He gained some distinction
as a scholar and a poet, and was originally destined for holy orders. In
1643 he was secretary to Lord Digby at Oxford, and was employed as a
messenger between the queen and Ormonde in Ireland. Subsequently he took
up arms for the king, and received a wound in the skirmish at Andover in
1644, the scar of which remained on his face through life.[1] And after
the defeat of the royal cause he travelled in France and Italy, joined
the exiled royal family in 1650, and in 1654 became official secretary
to James on Charles's recommendation, who had already been attracted by
his "pleasant and agreeable humour."[2] In March 1657 he was knighted,
and the same year was sent as Charles's agent to Madrid, where he
remained, endeavouring to obtain assistance for the royal cause, till
after the Restoration. On his return to England in 1661 he was made
keeper of the privy purse, and became the prime favourite. One of his
duties was the procuring and management of the royal mistresses, in
which his success gained him great credit. Allying himself with Lady
Castlemaine, he encouraged Charles's increasing dislike to Clarendon;
and he was made secretary of state in October 1662 in spite of the
opposition of Clarendon, who had to find him a seat in parliament. He
represented Callington from 1661 till 1665, but appears never to have
taken part in debate. He served subsequently on the committees for
explaining the Irish Act of Settlement and for Tangiers. In 1663 he
obtained a peerage as Baron Arlington of Arlington, or Harlington, in
Middlesex, and in 1667 was appointed one of the postmasters-general. The
control of foreign affairs was entrusted to him, and he was chiefly
responsible for the attack on the Smyrna fleet and for the first Dutch
War. In 1665 he advised Charles to grant liberty of conscience, but this
was merely a concession to gain money during the war; and he showed
great activity later in oppressing the nonconformists. On the death of
Southampton, whose administration he had attacked, his great ambition,
the treasurership, was not satisfied; and on the fall of Clarendon,
against whom he had intrigued, he did not, though becoming a member of
the Cabal ministry, obtain the supreme influence which he had expected;
for Buckingham first shared, and soon surpassed him, in the royal
favour. With Buckingham a sharp rivalry sprang up, and they only
combined forces when endeavouring to bring about some evil measure, such
as the ruin of the great Ormonde, who was an opponent of their policy
and their schemes. Another object of jealousy to Arlington was Sir
William Temple, who achieved a great popular success in 1668 by the
conclusion of the Triple Alliance; Arlington endeavoured to procure his
removal to Madrid, and entered with alacrity into Charles's plans for
destroying the whole policy embodied in the treaty, and for making terms
with France. He refused a bribe from Louis XIV., but allowed his wife to
accept a gift of 10,000 crowns;[3] in 1670 he was the only minister
besides the Roman Catholic Clifford to whom the first secret treaty of
Dover (May 1670), one clause of which provided for Charles's declaration
of his conversion to Romanism, was confided (see CHARLES II.); and he
was the chief actor in the deception practised upon the rest of the
council.[4] He supported several other pernicious measures--the scheme
for rendering the king's power absolute by force of arms; the "stop of
the exchequer," involving a repudiation of the state debt in 1672; and
the declaration of indulgence the same year, "that we might keep all
quiet at home whilst we are busy abroad."[5] On the 22nd of April 1672
he was created an earl, and on the 13th of June obtained the Garter; the
same month he proceeded with Buckingham on a mission, first to William
at the Hague, and afterwards to Louis at Utrecht, endeavouring to force
upon the Dutch terms of peace which were indignantly refused. But
Arlington's support of the court policy was entirely subordinate to
personal interests; and after the appointment of Clifford in November
1672 to the treasurership, his jealousy and mortification, together with
his alarm at the violent opposition aroused in parliament, caused him to
veer over to the other side. He advised Charles in March 1673 to submit
the legality of the declaration of indulgence to the House of Lords, and
supported the Test Act of the same year, which compelled Clifford to
resign. He joined the Dutch party, and in order to make his peace with
his new allies, disclosed the secret treaty of Dover to the staunch
Protestants Ormonde and Shaftesbury.[6] Arlington had, however, lost the
confidence of all parties, and these efforts to procure support met with
little success. On the 15th of January 1674 he was impeached by the
Commons, the specific charges being "popery," corruption and the
betrayal of his trust--Buckingham in his own defence having accused him
the day before of being the chief instigator of the French and
anti-Protestant policy, of the scheme of governing by the army, of
responsibility for the Dutch War, and of embezzlement. But the motion
for his removal, owing chiefly to the influence of his brother-in-law,
the popular Lord Ossory, was rejected by 166 votes to 127. His escape
could not, however, prevent his fall, and he resigned the secretaryship
on the 11th of September 1674, being appointed lord chamberlain instead.
In 1675 he made another attempt to gain favour with the parliament by
supporting measures against France and against the Roman Catholics, and
by joining in the pressure put upon Charles to remove James from the
court. In November he went on a mission to the Hague, with the popular
objects of effecting a peace and of concluding an alliance with William
and James's daughter Mary. In this he entirely failed, and he returned
home completely discredited. He had again been disappointed of the
treasurership when Danby succeeded Clifford; Charles having declared
"that he had too much kindness for him to let him have it, for he was
not fit for the office."[7] His intrigues with discontented persons in
parliament to stir up an opposition to his successful rival came to
nothing. From this time, though lingering on at court, he possessed no
influence, and was treated with scanty respect. It was safe to ridicule
his person and behaviour, and it became a common jest for "some courtier
to put a black patch upon his nose and strut about with a white staff in
his hand in order to make the king merry at his expense."[8] He was
appointed a commissioner of the treasury in March 1679, was included in
Sir William Temple's new modelled council the same year, and was a
member of the inner cabinet which was almost immediately formed. In 1681
he was made lord lieutenant of Suffolk. He died on the 28th of July
1685, and was buried at Euston, where he had bought a large estate and
had carried out extensive building operations. His residence in London
was Goring House, on the site of which was built the present Arlington
Street.
Arlington was a typical statesman of the Restoration, possessing
outwardly an attractive personality, and according to Sir W. Temple "the
greatest skill of court and the best turns of art in particular
conversation,"[9] but thoroughly unscrupulous and self-seeking, without
a spark of patriotism, faithless even to a bad cause, and regarding
public office solely as a means of procuring pleasure and profit. His
knowledge of foreign affairs and of foreign languages, gained during his
residence abroad, was considerable, but long absence from England had
also taught him a cosmopolitan indifference to constitutions and
religions, and a careless disregard for English public opinion and the
essential interests of the country. According to Clarendon, he "knew no
more of the constitution and laws of England than he did of China, nor
had he in truth a care or tenderness for church or state, but believed
France was the best pattern in the world."[10] He was one of the chief
promoters of the attempt to reintroduce into England arbitrary
government after the French model, not because he imagined an absolute
monarchy essential to the well-being and security of the state, but
because under such an administration the favourites of a king enjoyed
far greater privileges and profits than under a constitutional
government. Of the same egotistical character was his religion, towards
which his attitude was similar to that of Charles II. himself. He was
credited with having inclined the king towards Romanism. Before the
Restoration he had attended mass with the king abroad, and in opposition
to Lord Bristol had urged Charles to declare publicly his conversion in
order to obtain the long-expected succour from the foreign powers. But
his religion sat lightly upon him as it did upon his master, and it was
often convenient to disguise it. Like the king he continued to profess
and practise Protestantism, and spent large sums in restoring the church
at Euston; and, unlike Clifford, he took the Test in 1673 and remained
in office, successfully concealing his faith till on his deathbed, when
he declared himself an adherent of Roman Catholicism.[11]
He married Isabella of Beerwaert, daughter of Louis of Nassau, by whom
he had one daughter, Isabella, who married Henry, duke of Grafton, the
natural son of Charles II. and Lady Castlemaine.
AUTHORITIES.--In addition to those mentioned above, see _Biographia
Britannica_ (Kippis), accurate and careful, but too partial, and
written without complete knowledge of Arlington's career; Wood's
_Fasti Oxonienses_ (Bliss), ii. 274; _Hist. of Great Britain_ by J.
Macpherson (1776), i. 132-133; _Lauderdale Papers_ (Camden Soc. N.S.,
vols. 34, 36, 38), and MSS. in Brit. Mus.; _Original Letters of Sir R.
Fanshaw_ (1724); _Letters from the Secretaries of State to Francis
Parry_ (1817); _Add. MSS. Brit. Mus._ indexes; _Cat. of State Pap.
Dom._, and _Hist. MSS. Comm.--MSS. of Marquis of Ormonde, and Duke of
Buccleugh at Montagu House_, ii. 49. (P. C. Y.)