Francis Atterbury | |
|---|---|
| Bishop of Rochester | |
 Francis Atterbury byGodfrey Kneller | |
| Diocese | Diocese of Rochester |
| In office | 1713–1723 |
| Predecessor | Thomas Sprat |
| Successor | Samuel Bradford |
| Orders | |
| Ordination | 1687 |
| Consecration | 1713 |
| Personal details | |
| Born | (1663-03-06)6 March 1663 |
| Died | 22 February 1732(1732-02-22) (aged 68) |
| Buried | Westminster Abbey |
| Denomination | Church of England |
| Education | Westminster School |
| Alma mater | Christ Church, Oxford |
Francis Atterbury (6 March 1663 – 22 February 1732) was an Englishman of letters, politician andbishop. A High ChurchTory andJacobite, he gained patronage underQueen Anne, but was mistrusted by the HanoverianWhig ministries, and banished for communicating with theOld Pretender in theAtterbury Plot. He was a noted wit and a gifted preacher.
He was born atMiddleton, Milton Keynes, inBuckinghamshire, where his father wasrector. He was educated atWestminster School andChrist Church, Oxford,[1] where he became atutor. In 1682 he published a translation ofDryden'sAbsalom and Achitophel into Latin verse with neither the style nor the versification typical of theAugustan age. In English composition he met greater success; in 1687 he publishedAn Answer to some Considerations, the Spirit ofMartin Luther and the Original of theReformation, a reply toObadiah Walker, who, when elected master ofUniversity College, Oxford, in 1676, had printed in a press set up by him there an attack on the Reformation written byAbraham Woodhead. Atterbury's treatise, though highly praised by BishopGilbert Burnet, was more distinguished for the vigour of hisrhetoric than the soundness of his arguments, and thePapists accused him oftreason, and of having, by implication, calledKing James "Judas".[2]
After the "Glorious Revolution", Atterbury readily swore fealty to the new government. He had taken holy orders in 1687, preached occasionally in London with an eloquence which raised his reputation, and was soon appointed one of the royal chaplains. He ordinarily lived at Oxford, where he was the chief adviser and assistant ofHenry Aldrich, under whom Christ Church was a stronghold of Toryism. He inspired a pupil,Charles Boyle, in theExamination of Dr. Bentley's Dissertations on the Epistles of Phalaris, an attack (1698) on theWhig scholarRichard Bentley, arising out of Bentley's impugnment of the genuineness of theEpistles of Phalaris. He was figured bySwift inThe Battle of the Books as the Apollo who directed the fight, and was, no doubt, largely the author of Boyle's essay. Bentley spent two years in preparing his famous reply, which proved not only that the letters ascribed to Phalaris were spurious, but that all Atterbury's wit and eloquence were a cloak for an audacious pretence atscholarship.[2]
Atterbury was soon occupied in a dispute about matters still more important and exciting.High church andLow church divided the nation. The majority of the clergy were on the High Church side; the majority of King William's bishops were inclined tolatitudinarianism. In 1701 the Convocation, of which the lower house was overwhelmingly Tory, met after a gap of ten years. Atterbury threw himself with characteristic energy into the controversy, publishing a series of treatises. Many regarded him as the most intrepid champion that had ever defended the rights of the clergy against theoligarchy ofErastianprelates. In 1701 he becameArchdeacon of Totnes and received aprebend inExeter Cathedral. The lower house of Convocation voted him thanks for his services; the University of Oxford made him aDoctor of Divinity (D.D.); and in 1704, soon after the accession ofQueen Anne, he was promoted to theDeanery of Carlisle Cathedral.[2]
In 1710, the prosecution ofHenry Sacheverell produced a formidable explosion of High Church fanaticism. At such a moment Atterbury could not fail to be conspicuous. His inordinate zeal for the body to which he belonged and his rare talents for agitation and for controversy were again displayed. He took a chief part in framing that artful and eloquent speech which Sacheverell made at the bar of the House of Lords, and which presents a singular contrast to the absurd and scurrilous sermon which had very unwisely been honoured withimpeachment. During the troubled and anxious months which followed the trial, Atterbury was among the most active of thosepamphleteers who inflamed the nation against the Whig ministry and the Whig parliament. When the ministry changed and the parliament was dissolved, rewards were showered upon him. The lower house of Convocation elected himprolocutor, in which capacity he drew up, in 1711, the often-citedRepresentation of the State of Religion; and in August 1711, the queen, who had selected him as her chief adviser in ecclesiastical matters, appointed himDean of Christ Church on the death of his old friend and patronHenry Aldrich[3]
At Oxford he was as conspicuous a failure as he had been at Carlisle, and it was said by his enemies that he was made a bishop because he was so bad a dean. Under his administration, Christ Church was in confusion, scandalous altercations took place, and there was reason to fear that the great Tory college would be ruined by the tyranny of the great Tory doctor. In 1713 he was removed to thebishopric of Rochester, which was then always united with thedeanery of Westminster. Still higher dignities seemed to be before him, for though there were many able men on the episcopal bench, there was none who equalled or approached him in parliamentary talents. Had his party continued in power it is not improbable that he would have been raised to thearchbishopric of Canterbury. The more splendid his prospects the more reason he had to dread the accession of a family which was well known to be partial to the Whigs, and there is every reason to believe that he was one of those politicians who hoped that they might be able, during the life of Anne, to prepare matters in such a way that at her death there might be little difficulty in setting aside theAct of Settlement and placingJames Francis Edward Stuart (The 'Old Pretender') on the throne.[3]
Queen Anne's sudden death confounded the projects of these conspirators, and, whatever Atterbury's previous views may have been, he acquiesced in what he could not prevent, took the oaths to theHouse of Hanover, and did his best to ingratiate himself with the royal family. But his servility was requited with cold contempt; he became the most factious and pertinacious of all the opponents of the government. In theHouse of Lords his oratory, lucid, pointed, lively and set off with every grace of pronunciation and of gesture, aroused the attention and admiration even of a hostile majority. Some of the most remarkable protests which appear in the journals of the peers were drawn up by him; and, in some of the bitterest of those pamphlets which called on the English to stand up for their country against the aliens who had come from beyond the seas to allegedly oppress and plunder her, critics have detected his style. When therebellion of 1715 broke out, he refused to sign the paper in which the bishops of the province ofCanterbury declared their attachment to theProtestant accession, and in 1717, after having been long in indirect communication with the exiled family, he began to correspond directly with James Francis Edward Stuart.[3]
Recent findings from the State Papers at Kew have established that Atterbury was the 'Grand Prelate' of the Jacobite Order of Toboso in England. The Order of Toboso was a Jacobite fraternity named in honour ofDulcinea del Toboso, the imaginary amour ofDon Quixote. BothCharles Edward Stuart andHenry Benedict Stuart were members.[4]
| Attainder of Bishop of Rochester Act 1722 | |
|---|---|
| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | An Act to inflict Pains and Penalties on Francis, Lord Bishop of Rochester. |
| Citation | 9 Geo. 1. c. 17 |
| Territorial extent | Great Britain |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 27 May 1723 |
| Commencement | 9 October 1722[a] |
| Repealed | 16 June 1977 |
| Other legislation | |
| Repealed by | Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1977 |
| Relates to | |
Status: Repealed | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
In 1721, on the discovery of theplot for the capture of the royal family and the proclamation of "King James III", Atterbury was arrested with the other chief malcontents, and in 1722 committed to theTower of London, where he remained in close confinement during some months. He had carried on his correspondence with the exiled family so cautiously that the circumstantial proofs of his guilt, though sufficient to produce entire moral conviction, were not sufficient to justify legal conviction. He could be reached only by a bill of pains and penalties. In 1723 such a bill passed theCommons depriving him of his spiritual dignities, banishing him for life, and forbidding any British subject to hold intercourse with him except by the royal permission. In the Lords the contest was sharp, but the bill finally passed by eighty-three votes to forty-three.[3]
After a short stay at Brussels he went to Paris, and became the leading man among the Jacobite refugees there. He was invited to Rome by the Pretender, but Atterbury felt that a bishop of theChurch of England would be out of place in Rome, and declined the invitation. During some months, however, he seemed to be high in the good graces of James. The correspondence between the master and the servant was constant. Atterbury's merits were warmly acknowledged, his advice was respectfully received, and he was, asBolingbroke had been before him, theprime minister of a king without a kingdom. He soon, however, perceived that his counsels were disregarded, if not distrusted. His proud spirit was deeply wounded. In 1728 he left Paris, occupied his residence atMontpellier, gave up politics, and devoted himself entirely to letters. In the sixth year of his exile he had so severe an illness that his daughter, Mrs Morice, herself very ill, determined to run all risks that she might see him once more. He met her atToulouse, she received the last rites from him, and died that night.[3]
Atterbury survived the shock of his daughter's death, and returned to Paris and to the service of the Pretender. In the ninth year of his banishment he published a vindication of himself againstJohn Oldmixon, who had accused him of having, in concert with other Christ Church men, garbled the new edition ofClarendon'sHistory of the Rebellion. He was not one of the editors of theHistory, and had never seen it until it was printed. Atterbury died, aged 68, on 22 February 1732.His body was brought to England, and interred inWestminster Abbey.[3] In his papers now kept at the Library of Westminster, he desired to be buried "as far from kings and politicians as may be." Thus he is buried next to a 21st-century tourist information booth kiosk. The black slab is simple, indicating his name, birth and death dates; the inscription is now considerably worn.
Of his wife, Katherine Osborn, whom he married while at Oxford, little is known; but between him and his daughter there was affection. His fondness forJohn Milton was such as to many Tories seemed a crime; and he was the close friend ofJoseph Addison. He lived on friendly terms withJonathan Swift,John Arbuthnot andJohn Gay. WithMatthew Prior he had a close intimacy.Alexander Pope found in Atterbury an admirer, adviser, and editor as requested.[5]
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Atterbury, Francis".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 880–882.| Church of England titles | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | Archdeacon of Totnes 1702–1713 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Dean of Carlisle 1704–1711 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Dean of Christ Church, Oxford 1711–1713 | |
| Preceded by | Bishop of Rochester 1713–1723 | Succeeded by |
| Dean of Westminster 1713–1723 | ||
| Deans |
|  | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canons (current) |
| |||||
| Topics |
| |||||
