« PreviousContinue »
gentlemen, which might make this construction pass. But CHARLES these allegations were found evasive; for Kilvart produced a letter written by Williams, to his secretary Walker, at the time when the misunderstandings happened between Laud and Weston. The letter is this :
“Here is a strange thing. Mr. Osbaldston importunes me to contribute to my lord-treasurer's use some charges upon the little great man, and assures me they are mortally out. I have utterly refused to meddle in this business; and I pray you learn from Mr. S. and Mr. H. if any such falling out be, or whether somebody hath not gulled the schoolmaster in these three last letters, and keep it unto yourself what I write unto you. If my lord-treasurer would be served by me, he must use a more near, solid, and trusty messenger, and free me from the bonds of the Star-chamber, else let them fight it out for me."
The mystery thus discovered, they both fell under the statute of “Scandalum Magnatum,” which drew another fine of 8,0001. upon the bishop. Osbaldston's sentence was a fine of 5,0001., the loss of all his Church preferments, to have his ears fastened to the pillory in the Palace-yard ; and both of them were adjudged to pay costs to archbishop Laud. These were looked on as harsh proceedings; but the archbishop, as it is affirmed, had a favour in reserve for Osbaldston, and resolved to throw himself at the king's feet, that the corporal punishment might not be executed. That this was his intention, Rushworth. seems probable, by Osbaldston's not being immediately con- Anglic.
Cyprian. fined, but suffered to make his escape.
These rigours, as they were construed, of the Star-chamber, prosecuting the clergy for not reading the declaration for sports, and falling short of compliance in ceremonies, gave an umbrage to the Scots, filled them with jealousies, made them more implicit to Presbyterian suggestions, and an easier property to the politicians of that kingdom. This gave the malcontents a handle for practice, and a stronger aversion to the Common Prayer. Their disaffection to the hierarchy was pushed farther by the faction in England, who were not without a correspondence with the Scots. These men being highly disgusted with the publishing the book for sports, removing
LAUD, the communion-table to an altar situation, suppressing lectures Abp. Cant, and afternoon sermons, and forbidding preaching or printing . .
in defence of Calvinism, carried their complaints to the remotest parts of the island, and alarmed the Scots with apprehensions of being reduced to the same condition. They believed their own prelates acted by concert with Laud and his party, raising their jurisdiction upon the ruins of presbytery, and bringing the Church to the English model. This, beside their particular exceptions to the new service, made them strongly prepossessed against this affair.
The bishops, pursuant to his majesty's commands, ordered intimation to be given in the pulpits at Edinburgh, that the next Sunday, July the 23rd, the Service-book would be read in all the churches. The ministers dilated upon the benefits of the Common Prayer, and exhorted the people to compli
Accordingly, on the 23rd of July, the dean of Edinburgh
began to read the book at the cathedral of St. Giles's ; but the Prayer read devotion was quickly disturbed by a mob of women, who outburgh, and raged the dean with clamour, and other instances of rudeness.
Upon this the bishop of Edinburgh, stepping into the pulpit, put them in mind of the place, and the business, and endeavoured to recover them to decency and temper; but admonition serving only to enrage the more, they threw stools at the dean and bishop, and attempted to pull them out of the pulpit and desk. The ministers who read the Common Prayer in the other churches met with the same treatment, and made their escape with great difficulty. The lord chancellor and the secret council, to prevent the repetition of this insolence,
appearing well attended in the afternoon, the book was read L'Estrange, without disturbance. However, the bishop going to his house History of King was in danger of being murdered in the streets ; but by good
; providence, the earl of Roxburgh coming by, took him into his coach and outdrove the rabble. This bold sally, though it carried the face of a rash unpremeditated riot, was, in reality, the result of a consultation held at Edinburgh in April last. Here the lord Balmaranoch, sir Thomas Hope, advocate, and Mr. Alexander Henderson, with some others of conduct and figure, being in the concert, engaged the women to begin the attack
upon the book, giving them an assurance the men would support them, and go on with the quarrel.
Notwithstanding this inauspicious beginning, the archbishop CHARLES of St. Andrew's charged this Henderson, and Mr. James
. Bruce, beneficed in Fife, to read the book under the penalty of August 23. “horning.” These two ministers addressing the lords of the Horning' is
outlawry for council for a suspension of this order, were so far considered, treason. as to have a month's respite; during which time these lords
778. wrote to the king for further instructions.
The bishops expected the council would have discountenanced these ministers in their petition, and punished the rioters at Edinburgh in an exemplary manner; but when they found themselves disappointed in both, they began to distrust their lord-treasurer, when it was too late.
The countenance Henderson and Bruce met with at the council encouraged the rest, and several of the nobility, with no small number of the ministers and burgesses, declared openly for the cause, and addressed the board in form against the Common Prayer.
If we inquire into the reasons of this unhappy miscarriage, Some reuthe earl of Traquair's being too much confided in by the sons of the
miscarriage English and Scotch prelates, and their resting the whole affair of this
affair. the conduct of this nobleman, had no small weight upon upon the disappointment. I have already observed, that this earl being apprehensive of a rivalship in interest from the bishop of Ross, grew disaffected to the rest of his order. That he was no friend to the bishops, appears further by his letter to the marquis of Hamilton, upon the subject before us. desires the marquis “to suggest to his majesty, that if he is
Traquair pleased to send for any of the Scotch clergy to report the con- the Scottish
bishops to dition of affairs, or employ them in the present juncture, he disadwould choose some of the best qualified with temper and dis- vantage. cretion ; for, as for some leading men amongst them, they were defective in judgment, and extravagantly violent and forward ; that their want of understanding to manage things of this niceness and weight embarrassed the council with a great many difficulties; and that their rashness and folly, both in discourse and business, were the occasion of fears and jealousies among the people, and made the government misconstrued. That the bishops complained their revenues and jurisdiction were seized by the Reformation ; and that the worship of God
Memoirs of was not in all circumstances exactly settled.” From hence it Duke of
Hamilton, appears the earl was not pleased the bishop should remember p. 41.
He The earl of
LAUD, encroachments upon religion, move for redress, and endeavour Abp. Cant.
restoring the Church to a primitive condition.
To return : the postponing the reading the Liturgy from Easter to July was another wrong step: by this delay the Presbyterians had time to form counter-schemes, and make parties against it: they had leisure to alarm the people with jealousies, stating that the purity of religion must suffer, and that superstition and popery would be forced upon them. And thus, when they had surprised their understandings, misreported the Church and State, and worked themselves to a confidence with their party, it was then in their power to govern almost at pleasure. It was thought the Scotch bishops made some other mistakes : for, not to repeat their declining getting the book passed in a general assembly, they fell into another error, by making their first trial in a town where they might reasonably expect most opposition : instead therefore of executing the Liturgy at Edinburgh, they should have made their essay in remoter dioceses, where the people were less indisposed.
Some of the Scotch bishops are likewise blamed for not preacquainting the lords of the council, and others of the nobility, with the design: had these great men been at first applied to for their concurrence, and courted into the interest, it is believed no small numbers of them might have been gained: this was the archbishop of Canterbury's advice, when the Common Prayer-book was under the first digestion. Some of the Scotch bishops likewise complained of their not being taken into the consultation; this was censured as an excess of secrecy : for which way could these prelates, who knew little or nothing, exert themselves, and work their clergy to compliance ? Besides, there was no care taken to make the ministers; nothing promised to take off the leading men, and bribe them to their duty: and lastly, the public intimation of reading the book a week before might probably disserve the undertaking: for what was this notice, but a kind of summons to the malcontents, to rendezvous the mob, and prepare them for mutiny and insult? And thus much for the mistakes prior to the experiment. To proceed to some other following instances. First, when the Scotch bishops found the book ill received, and the rabble rise upon it, they consulted apart, sent the king word of what had passed, without pre-acquainting the temporal lords, or reinforcing the cause with that interest. Next, their
leaving Edinburgh, and retiring all to their dioceses, excepting CHARLES the bishops of Galloway and Dumblain, was remarked as another error: for, as Canterbury, in one of his letters to Traquair, expostulates, they must needs imagine the adverse party would make an advantage of their absence, and clog the undertaking with new difficulties.
But to this it may be answered, the bishops might reasonably conclude themselves unsafe in this town: for neither the lords of the council, or the magistracy, had given any orders to seize the chief incendiaries, and bring them to justice: this impunity looked either like fear or favour, and encouraged to further insolence: had the sword of justice been seasonably drawn on some few, it is probable it might have prevented a great effusion of blood, and secured the repose of that kingdom : but those who managed the administration seemed to have other views, or at least different thoughts, of the issue ; for instead of punishing the rioters, they suspended the Liturgy.
It is true, the Edinburghers being apprehensive the English fleet might distress them, by blocking up their haven, endeavoured to bring his majesty to a better opinion of their conduct. To this purpose, in their letter to the archbishop of August 19. Canterbury, they declared their abhorrence of the late tumult, protested their innocency, and appealed to the lords of the council for their vindication : to this they subjoined their readiness to assist the bishops and ministers for settling the service book; and that they would do their utmost to promote this affair, and protect those that engaged it. And to give their application a stronger appearance of reality, they seized some of the mutineers, and made inquiry after others : and whereas the city ministers desired to be excused reading the book till security.was given them against the rabble ; the magistrates and common-council of Edinburgh signed them a safeguard in form, and over and above settled a maintenance.
And now harvest coming on, the frenzy of the populace seemed to cool, and business was some intermission to sedition; but after this season was over, the Presbyterian faction drew together again, and appeared at Edinburgh in formidable 779. numbers. And now the burghers began to lay aside the mask, and discover their inclination. Instead of exerting their former zeal for the Common Prayer, they presented an address to the