monies are comprehended in the term usages. Thus by the Concordate both offices were placed upon the same footing.[1] Both were to be used at the option of the Clergy: but neither party was to introduce usages not contained in and enjoined by these offices. It seems, however, that some of the Clergy violated the compact, which led to the publication of Bishop Smith's Letter in 1744, in defence of the English Office.
It appears, that the Pretender was usually consulted in the appointment of the Scottish Bishops, of which various instances are related by Lockhart. Some contended, that the election by the Clergy was sufficient: while others argued, that the consent of the King, meaning the Son of James II. and the college of Bishops was necessary. This dispute continued several years: and Lockhart designates those who opposed the college, as factious Bishops, because they paid no respect to the King and their brethren.[2] We find, that on some occasions, the Pretender named the persons; but of course they had been previously suggested to him by his friends in Scotland. They looked forward to his restoration: and though they took no steps to effect it, they still wished to keep up the succession, in what was deemed the regular way.[3] In 1726 the Pretender addressed a letter to the College of Bishops, in which, alluding to the infirmities of the Bishop of Edinburgh, he says, "I have found it necessary, by this letter, to desire and direct, that Bishop Cant, and failing of him by decease, or his being rendered incapable by infirmities, that Bishop Duncan should reside at Edinburgh
