Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 4.djvu/196

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

176

REIGN OF HENRY THE EIGHTH.

[ch. 21.

position should be universally acknowledged; and on an inquisitorial visit which he had paid to Glasgow, an indecorous dispute had arisen between himself and a rival archbishop on the score of precedence, when they were going to mass in the cathedral.^[1] The coldness which had followed had been too injurious to Catholic interests to be allowed to continue; the two prelates were soon reconciled, and the occasion was chosen for the execution, or the murder, whichever we prefer to call it, of the most dangerous of the present leaders of the Reformation.

George Wishart, one of a numerous race who at that time bore the name of Wishart in the Lowlands, had

↑ 'The Cardinal alleged, by reason of his cardinalship, and that he was legatus natus in the kingdom of Antichrist, that he should have the pre-eminence, and that his cross should not only go before, but that it only should be borne wheresoever he was. The Archbishop (of Glasgow) also lacked no reason, as he thought, for maintenance of his glory. He was an archbishop in his own diocese, and in his own cathedral, see, and kirk, and therefore ought to give place to no man. However these doubts were resolved by the doctors of divinity of both the prelates, yet the decision was as ye shall hear. Coming forth or going in at the choir door of Glasgow Kirk began striving for state between the two cross-bearers, so that from glooming they came to shouldering, from shouldering they went, to buffets; and then for charity's sake they cried, 'Dispersit dedit pauperibus,' and assayed which of the crosses was of finest metal, which staff was strongest, and which bearer could best defend his master's pre-eminence; and that there should be no superiority in that behalf, to the ground went both the crosses; and there began no little fray, but yet a merry game, for rochets were rent, tippets were torn, crowns were knyppit, and gowns might have been seen wantonly wag from one wall to the other. Many of them lacked beards, and that was the more pity, and therefore could not buckle other by the byrss as some bold men would have done. But fie on the jackmen, they did not their duty, for had the one part of them rencountered the other, then all had gone right.'—Knox's History of the Reformation.

[1] 'The Cardinal alleged, by reason of his cardinalship, and that he was legatus natus in the kingdom of Antichrist, that he should have the pre-eminence, and that his cross should not only go before, but that it only should be borne wheresoever he was. The Archbishop (of Glasgow) also lacked no reason, as he thought, for maintenance of his glory. He was an archbishop in his own diocese, and in his own cathedral, see, and kirk, and therefore ought to give place to no man. However these doubts were resolved by the doctors of divinity of both the prelates, yet the decision was as ye shall hear. Coming forth or going in at the choir door of Glasgow Kirk began striving for state between the two cross-bearers, so that from glooming they came to shouldering, from shouldering they went, to buffets; and then for charity's sake they cried, 'Dispersit dedit pauperibus,' and assayed which of the crosses was of finest metal, which staff was strongest, and which bearer could best defend his master's pre-eminence; and that there should be no superiority in that behalf, to the ground went both the crosses; and there began no little fray, but yet a merry game, for rochets were rent, tippets were torn, crowns were knyppit, and gowns might have been seen wantonly wag from one wall to the other. Many of them lacked beards, and that was the more pity, and therefore could not buckle other by the byrss as some bold men would have done. But fie on the jackmen, they did not their duty, for had the one part of them rencountered the other, then all had gone right.'—Knox's History of the Reformation.

[1]