Bishop of London; the object of his attendance (which was not otherwise necessary) was, that he might assist in establishing that uniformity of worship which both he and the King wished to introduce, by imposing the English Church Government and English Church Liturgy on the Scotch Presbyterians. The Scotch were no less strong in their preference for their own form of Church Government and Service than tenacious of their civil independence. The throne of England was occupied by the King of Scotland, and much jealousy existed on the part of that country lest it should be treated as a province of England, and subjected in any way to her laws and government beyond the unity of allegiance due to their common sovereign. Great diversity of opinion arose as to the time, as well as manner, in which these projected changes should be effected. It was well understood that the draught would be bitter to swallow, and unhappily the various expedients to sweeten the cup only added to its bitterness and increased the repugnance of those for whom it was intended. Bishop Laud, with true professional zeal, thought the fittest remedy for the weakness of episcopacy was an increase in the number of Bishops and an addition to the secular power of the Clergy; but as this weakness was occasioned by the want of support in public opinion, he only added to the superstructure without strengthening the foundation, and the pile thus increased soon crumbled to ruins. Edinburgh was erected into a bishopric, a new Dean was also appointed, the Archbishop of St. Andrews was made Chancellor of Scotland, and four or five other Bishops named of

the Privy Council or Lords of the Session, in the vain hope that, by thus giving them power in the State, they would acquire that respect and influence in the Church which they had failed to obtain as Churchmen.

In August, 1633, the King returned from Scotland, leaving to the care of the Bishops there the providing a Liturgy and a book of Canons, and which, as soon as they could be prepared, were to be submitted to Laud, now Archbishop of Canterbury;' Juxon, Bishop of London; and Wren, Bishop of Norwich.

For a while there was a delusive acquiescence on the part of the Scots in this preparation of a Liturgy, which was attributed to conversion of opinion, or submission to authority; but it was afterwards found to proceed from their trusting to the indiscretion of the Bishops being of more advantage to them than any opposition they could offer.2

After two years the Bishop presented a body of Canons the King referred them to the Archbishop and Bishops in England; after some alterations they returned them to the King, who issued his proclamation for their due observance in Scotland. The Archbishop of Canterbury had warned the Bishops in Scotland not to propose anything to the King which should be contrary to the law of that land, and never to put anything in execution without the consent and approbation of the Privy Council there. He well knew that no change could be introduced in the Church which would

'Laud had been raised to the archbishopric on the death of Abbot when the King returned from Scotland.

2 Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion,' vol. i. p. 185.

not concern the State, and even the municipal laws of the kingdom; yet neither before nor after the King's proclamation were these Canons seen by the Assembly, by any Convocation of the Clergy, or by the Lords of the Council in Scotland.

The people of Scotland considered the Canons as new laws imposed by the King's sole authority; as contrived by a few private men, strangers to the nation; and as implying a subjection not merely to the Church, but also to the civil government of England. They perceived an inclination to Popery in some of the Canons, whilst they objected to others as conferring an unlimited power and prerogative upon the King in all cases ecclesiastical; their laws and customs were thwarted, and the rights of property were infringed, by a direction that all Bishops and ecclesiastics dying without children should leave a good part of their estates, and those with children somewhat, to the Church. To crown the other errors connected with this compilation, was its publication before that of the Liturgy, with which three or four of the Canons enjoined punctual compliance, though of its contents nothing was then known.

About the month of July, 1637, the Liturgy was sent by the Scotch Bishops to England, perused by the Archbishop and Bishops, approved and confirmed by the King, and appointed to be read in Scotland on the Sunday next; and all this again without previous consultation or knowledge of the Scotch Clergy, Privy Council, and others.

The reception of the Liturgy in the cathedral church of Edinburgh was in the highest degree unfa

vourable-all decency and reverence due to the place of worship and the ministers of God was forgotten in the outbreak of indignation at this imposition of a Liturgy which was uncongenial to the feelings and opinions of the people. Stones and cudgels were hurled at the head of the Dean who read the service, and not a word. could be heard, from the clamour and uproar raised both within and without the church: it fared no better with those who had to read it in other places, for they were attacked and followed with bitter execrations against Bishops and Popery. The indifference in England as to the affairs of Scotland in general was so great up to this period, that, whilst the whole nation was solicitous to know what passed weekly in foreign countries, "no one ever inquired what was doing in Scotland, nor "had that kingdom a place or mention in one page of

any gazette." Nor did even this forcible rejection of the Liturgy create at first any interest in England. A despatch was sent to require the Lords of the Council at Edinburgh to act more vigorously in maintaining the King's authority, but the Council was powerless. Men of high rank engaged against the Bishops; women of all ranks joined in the cry against the Bishops and the Liturgy; Bishops were attacked in the streets; every Bishop left Edinburgh, and no one dared to read the Liturgy. People now flocked from all parts to Edinburgh, and soon formed themselves into a sort of government; they petitioned the King in the name of the nobility, lairds, clergy, and burgesses, complaining of the introduction of Popery; a general assembly was called, the Bishops summoned,

'Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. i. p. 195.

and then excommunicated for not appearing. The next step was to sign a covenant, which they maintained to be the same as that subscribed by King James, and to which they now called upon the King to agree, notwithstanding a clause being inserted for the extirpation of Bishops.

A series of negotiations passed, but without producing any approach to reconciliation or submission, and the Scotch began to raise an army, and chose as their General Colonel Leslie. The King now thought fit to acquaint his Council and the nation at large with the state of affairs between himself and the Scotch, and at the end of the year 1638 declared his resolution to have recourse to arms to suppress the rebellion in Scotland.

In the following spring the army was in readiness. The Earl of Arundel was chosen as General, the Earl of Essex Lieutenant-General, and the Earl of Holland General of the Horse. It appears that the King was more anxious upon this occasion to make a display of the nobility, than to select experienced officers, or procure efficient soldiers. He revived certain obligations of service, and inquired into the tenure by which many estates were held; and finding that the King, when he made war in person, called as many of the nobility to attend him as he pleased, summoned most of the nobles in his kingdom to be in readiness on a certain day.

It was this expedition that first called forth Lord Falkland from his retirement.

Whether his former desire for a military life prompted him to engage in it, or that he was included in the

VOL. I.

с