Charles I was singularly indisposed to make response to popular protest against his rule. That which had beginnings in a riot in and around St Giles's Cathedral in Edinburgh on 23 July 1637 was referred peremptorily to those who represented him in that city; what grew out of that riot the king would have preferred not to know. There were several dimensions to all of this. Least visible to Charles was a groundswell of discontent over the impact of three-kingdom government in a decade of poor harvests and trade problems. Individuals more or less aggrieved according to circumstance might have seen the prospect of an ‘English’ or ‘popish’ liturgy as a further, painful subject of aggravation. Almost as obscure to Charles were the immense efforts which prominent and vociferous individuals applied to organising a positive campaign of protest. Serious issues were felt to be at stake, more than talk of preferences for styles of worship might suggest. More visible were the efforts of the king's privy councilors and other supposed supporters against the protesters, yet here too there were obscurities. Given a general assumption that popular disturbance was inimical to orderly government, Charles would happily have heard no more than that the troubles were quelled; but, even when his concern was more aroused, distance and the politics of keeping his favour inevitably meant that he was but partially informed. Moreover, his capacity for listening to complaint was limited. It is on these latter dimensions that the following narrative is concentrated.